DC = Disappointing Cheesecake

[matchesmalone]

I've been disappointed by how far DC has pushed gratuitous cheesecake lately.

Daniel Acuna's interpretation of Phantom Lady, with giant, shiny breasts, is gross, not sexy.

In Action Comics, Carlos Pacheco has been showing Lois Lane in skimpy underwear for no apparent reason.

This week's Detective Comics cover by Simone Bianchi shows Poison Ivy wearing an amount of clothes that wouldn't pass at a strip club - too revealing. And the Clooneyesque Batman just seems to be (mentally) drooling over her.

DC has typically been a bit classier than this. Very disappointing.

[chap22]

you're right. this is the company that brought us Power Girl, short-skirted Supergirl who was in love with her pet horse, and Jim Balent's Catwoman....they'd never do any gratuitous cheesecake/sexed-up images.

unclench, bro...you'll live longer.:D ;) :p

[Ranadiel]

You forgot to mention the naked Giganta in this week's Atom and the naked Knockout(I feel like I got that name wrong, but I think that is it) in the last issue of Secret Six. But anyways, what was you complaint? *goes back to drooling*

[MikeShaynePI]

What are you, a 'mo or something?

[Defunct]

I'm sure Jesus is sobbing in to his pillow over Phantom Lady's huge tits. . .


Chill out, dude. If you find breats so disgusting, there are plenty of men in spandex shorts running around in the DCU.

[diana_fan]

you're right. this is the company that brought us Power Girl, short-skirted Supergirl who was in love with her pet horse, and Jim Balent's Catwoman....they'd never do any gratuitous cheesecake/sexed-up images.

unclench, bro...you'll live longer.:D ;) :p

Exactly.

Sheesh. How many "Blah blah blah MISOGYNY blah blah blah SEXISM blah blah blah blah OH NO BOOBIES!" posts do we really need?

[Kal*el]

I'm sure Jesus is sobbing in to his pillow over Phantom Lady's huge tits. . .


Chill out, dude. If you find breats so disgusting, there are plenty of men in spandex shorts running around in the DCU.

Thanks for that second comment. I am so sick of hear about how comics promote bad female body image, and are just there to pander to men. What about hugely muscled men in tights? I don't know about you, but I sure as hell am not built like Nightwing, but you don't hear me complaining that it's not realistic.

[Evan Waters]

Thanks for that second comment. I am so sick of hear about how comics promote bad female body image, and are just there to pander to men. What about hugely muscled men in tights?

The male images aren't sexualized nearly as much.

[Kal*el]

The male images aren't sexualized nearly as much.

Define sexualized. The males are made to look more sexually appealing that real life males are. That's close enough for me.

And for clarification, I don't care. What bothers me are the people who complain about it.

[BanMan]

You forgot to mention the naked Giganta in this week's Atom and the naked Knockout(I feel like I got that name wrong, but I think that is it) in the last issue of Secret Six. But anyways, what was you complaint? *goes back to drooling*

Is that the same Giganta in WW or a new one?

[Cyphon]

Define sexualized. The males are made to look more sexually appealing that real life males are. That's close enough for me.

And for clarification, I don't care. What bothers me are the people who complain about it.

It bugs me, because my wife looks at my comic pile each week, and while I actually do read for the stories and the quality art, if she sees enough Phantom Lady's and other pneumatic women, she's not nearly as supportive of my hobby. Plus, if you're trying to expand beyond an overwhelmingly male readship, that's gonna have to change.

And second, the men are an idealized version, but the muscles in most cases, do serve a purpose. Superheroes are athletic, strong and perform great feats of strength and endurance. Show me how super-gigantic breasts, and ultra thin waists help female heroes accomplish that.

[diana_fan]

Is that the same Giganta in WW or a new one?

Her name is Prof. Zeul. So, unless there are two of them running around, and they both grow to astounding heights, I am guessing it is the same one.

But the ATOM story and the WW story don't seem to mesh too well.

[matchesmalone]

What are you, a 'mo or something?

Thanks for your classy reply.

The homophobia shown in response to my comments says a lot.

[matchesmalone]

Forgot about Supergirl. It's one thing to make adult female characters into sex objects, but another to make teen female characters into sex objects. Ian Churchill's drawings sure do focus on her sexual characteristics. That costume doesn't help.

[Ranadiel]

Show me how super-gigantic breasts, and ultra thin waists help female heroes accomplish that.
For distraction purposes?

[Skyrider]

Forgot about Supergirl. It's one thing to make adult female characters into sex objects, but another to make teen female characters into sex objects. Ian Churchill's drawings sure do focus on her sexual characteristics. That costume doesn't help.

Don't have cable television do you. :rolleyes:

[Defunct]

Thanks for your classy reply.

The homophobia shown in response to my comments says a lot.
Homophobia? Seems most people just think you're a puritanical dolt with wildly hypocritical expectations from your comic books.

[MikeShaynePI]

Thanks for your classy reply.

The homophobia shown in response to my comments says a lot.
Who said I was afraid of 'mos?

[immortus]

Yeah, didn't you get the memo, comic books are largely published for masturbatory purposes.

[matchesmalone]

Homophobia? Seems most people just think you're a puritanical dolt with wildly hypocritical expectations from your comic books.

What part of

"What are you, a 'mo or something?"

don't you understand?

[matchesmalone]

Don't have cable television do you. :rolleyes:

Don't have a problem with sexualized images of teenagers, do you?

[jedifish]

I've been disappointed by how far DC has pushed gratuitous cheesecake lately.

Daniel Acuna's interpretation of Phantom Lady, with giant, shiny breasts, is gross, not sexy.

In Action Comics, Carlos Pacheco has been showing Lois Lane in skimpy underwear for no apparent reason.

This week's Detective Comics cover by Simone Bianchi shows Poison Ivy wearing an amount of clothes that wouldn't pass at a strip club - too revealing. And the Clooneyesque Batman just seems to be (mentally) drooling over her.

DC has typically been a bit classier than this. Very disappointing.

Yep, no cheesecake in this 1996 title

http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=59003&zoom=4

And Power Girl sure had a nice rack in this 1988 issue

http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=44539&zoom=4

or this 1978 cover

http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=31939&zoom=4

[matchesmalone]

Who said I was afraid of 'mos?

Your comments indicate that you have a fear of homosexuality.

[jedifish]

Your comments indicate that you have a fear of homosexuality.

Your comments indicate you don't like attractive women.

[MikeShaynePI]

Your comments indicate that you have a fear of homosexuality.
How do they do that? And it was a question, not a comment.

[Habitual]

I really don't care anything regarding the skimpy outfits. The crappy storytelling that's been going on of late is what's starting to get to me.

Hab

[matchesmalone]

How do they do that?

Men who are secure in their heterosexuality do not go out of their way to question the heterosexuality of other men.

[MikeShaynePI]

Men who are secure in their heterosexuality do not go out of their way to question the heterosexuality of other men.
I wasn't going out of my way.

[matchesmalone]

Your comments indicate you don't like attractive women.

I like attractive women. I like attractive artwork of women. I don't like tacky artwork that treats women as sex objects by exaggerating their sexual attributes.

[matchesmalone]

I wasn't going out of my way.

You're a real laugh riot.

Here, I'll save you some trouble by anticipating your arguments:

"I know you are but what am I!"

"You suck!"

"You're Hitler"!

[MikeShaynePI]

I like attractive women. I like attractive artwork of women. I don't like tacky artwork that treats women as sex objects by exaggerating their sexual attributes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niisCatAcvs

[diana_fan]

Oh for crying out loud, Mike was just making a joke. Sheesh.

[MikeShaynePI]

Oh for crying out loud, Mike was just making a joke. Sheesh.
Shut up, Hitler!

[matchesmalone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niisCatAcvs

I watched it. It was sexy and classy and sophisticated. I think Pacheco, Bianchi, Churchill, et al, could learn something about sexy vs grossly exploitative from it.

[matchesmalone]

Oh for crying out loud, Mike was just making a joke. Sheesh.

Yep, an anti-gay joke.

[MikeShaynePI]

I watched it. It was sexy and classy and sophisticated. I think Pacheco, Bianchi, Churchill, et al, could learn something about sexy vs grossly exploitative from it.
... the point was: when you got it, flaunt it.

[matchesmalone]

Shut up, Hitler!

Now THAT was funny!

[diana_fan]

Shut up, Hitler!

:)

Yep, an anti-gay joke.

*roll*

OK, yeah, whatever. Geez, get a sense of humor.

[MikeShaynePI]

Yep, an anti-gay joke.
How was it anti-gay?

[matchesmalone]

How was it anti-gay?

If you have to ask, I don't think you're mature enough to know the answer.

[MikeShaynePI]

If you have to ask, I don't think you're mature enough to know the answer.
No, I just think you're throwin out any sh*t you can.

[matchesmalone]

:)



*roll*

OK, yeah, whatever. Geez, get a sense of humor.

How's about some racial jokes then? Or maybe pick on people's religions?

[Skyrider]

Don't have a problem with sexualized images of teenagers, do you?

You know what? I never said I did or I didn't, but the simple fact of the matter is that it's everywhere. Look at pop stars, look at ANY show on MTV. Example: that sweet 16 show where teens can watch spoiled brats buy $16,000 dresses that don't leave anything to the imagination for parties where rap stars come preform...oh and then everyone runs around thinking it's the norm.

What I was pointing out, was that such things have, for good or ill become the mass media norm. Welcome to the modern world. That's not saying it's good or bad, hell I'm not even voicing my opinion on the matter, that's simply the state of things currently.

However, if you're too busy being sanctimonious and self-righteous I can understand why you'd still have your head in the days of the Salem witch hunts. You know people were married at the age of 16 then right?

Welcome to relativity, enjoy your stay.

As for everyone else, lets just stop posting in here. That way the thread can die and the op can go back under his bridge.

[matchesmalone]

No, I just think you're throwin out any sh*t you can.

So, you really don't see what's homophobic about asking if someone's a "'mo"?

[Defunct]

If you have to ask, I don't think you're mature enough to know the answer.
He asked if you were homosexual. If you find the mere suggestion that you might be gay insulting enough to go on a two page rant over, perhaps you are the one who "fears homosexuals".

[MikeShaynePI]

How's about some racial jokes then? Or maybe pick on people's religions?
If you make fun of Sammy Davis Jr you could knock the blacks and the jews at the same time. Plus he only had one eye.

[matchesmalone]

You know what? I never said I did or I didn't, but the simple fact of the matter is that it's everywhere. Look at pop stars, look at ANY show on MTV. Example: that sweet 16 show where teens can watch spoiled brats buy $16,000 dresses that don't leave anything to the imagination for parties where rap stars come preform...oh and then everyone runs around thinking it's the norm.

What I was pointing out, was that such things have, for good or ill become the mass media norm. Welcome to the modern world. That's not saying it's good or bad, hell I'm not even voicing my opinion on the matter, that's simply the state of things currently.

However, if you're too busy being sanctimonious and self-righteous I can understand why you'd still have your head in the days of the Salem witch hunts. You know people were married at the age of 16 then right?

Welcome to relativity, enjoy your stay.

Thanks for the intelligent and thoughtful comments on the matter. (Seriously.)

[MikeShaynePI]

He asked if you were homosexual. If you find the mere suggestion that you might be gay insulting enough to go on a two page rant over, perhaps you are the one who "fears homosexuals".
This guy knows the score.

[matchesmalone]

He asked if you were homosexual. If you find the mere suggestion that you might be gay insulting enough to go on a two page rant over, perhaps you are the one who "fears homosexuals".

No, he asked if I was a "'mo". That's an insulting foreshortening of homosexual.

[chap22]

I watched it. It was sexy and classy and sophisticated. I think Pacheco, Bianchi, Churchill, et al, could learn something about sexy vs grossly exploitative from it.
if he was dead, Mel Brooks would be rolling over in his grave at the mere suggestion that something he wrote was "classy and sophisticated"...:rolleyes: :D

[MikeShaynePI]

if he was dead, Mel Brooks would be rolling over in his grave at the suggestion that something he wrote was "classy and sophisticated"...:rolleyes: :D
Well, Uma Thurman shakin' her tits while Nathan Lane and Mathew Broderick drool on her is pretty classy. I hear they framed it and put it in a museum.

[chap22]

Well, Uma Thurman shakin' her tits while Nathan Lane and Mathew Broderick drool on her is pretty classy. I hear they framed it and put it in a museum.
my sarcasm-laden point exactly.

[Hobowatcher]

When you think about it, Poison Ivy has always dressed that way. Its what she is. When you think about it, there's only three characters that are possible sexually exploitive, Power Girl, Phantom Lady, and Supergirl. Power Girl gets a break because she is actually a strong willed woman who's well developed character wise. As for the other two, there really is no need.

I'm just glad we'er nothing like Japan in sexual exploitation of women and little girls.

[MikeShaynePI]

my sarcasm-laden point exactly.
Are you saying your point was laden with sarcasm, or that what I said was a sarcasm-laden version of your point? Cuz your point didn't really have much sarcasm in it.

[MikeShaynePI]

I'm just glad we'er nothing like Japan in sexual exploitation of women .

Yeah, I want to go to Japan, too.

[chap22]

Are you saying your point was laden with sarcasm, or that what I said was a sarcasm-laden version of your point? Cuz your point didn't really have much sarcasm in it.
true. mine was more snark. i meant that your sarcasm-laden point was the same as my snarky one. or something like that.;)

[Defunct]

No, he asked if I was a "'mo". That's an insulting foreshortening of homosexual.
Do you know what the word "foreshortening" means? Because. . . my God. You're just ten flavours of idiot, aren't you?

[matchesmalone]

Do you know what the word "foreshortening" means? Because. . . my God. You're just ten flavours of idiot, aren't you?

Read definition #2 and weep... (from www.m-w.com)

foreshorten
One entry found for foreshorten.

Main Entry: foreˇshortˇen
Pronunciation: for-'shor-t&n
Function: transitive verb
1 : to shorten by proportionately contracting in the direction of depth so that an illusion of projection or extension in space is obtained
2 : to make more compact : ABRIDGE, SHORTEN

So, the answer to your question would be "No"

[Hobowatcher]

Yeah, I want to go to Japan, too.
I wanted to go too, but I learned that catgirls aren't real.

:(

[matchesmalone]

Yeah, I want to go to Japan, too.

Mike,

What did you do all day before message boards existed? Did you do your routine at the mall, or the park, or ???

[MikeShaynePI]

Mike,

What did you do all day before message boards existed? Did you do your routine at the mall, or the park, or ???

Where did you take your gymnophobic rants before message boards? Nude beaches? Locker rooms?

[matchesmalone]

Where did you take your gymnophobic rants before message boards? Nude beaches? Locker rooms?

What's gymophobia?

[MikeShaynePI]

What's gymophobia?
You seem to know how to use a dictionary.

[matchesmalone]

You seem to know how to use a dictionary.

Yep and it isn't in there.

[MikeShaynePI]

Yep and it isn't in there.
Try learning to read first.

[matchesmalone]

Try learning to read first.

I'd sure be special if I knew how to use a dictionary but didn't know how to read!



http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/gymnophobia

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.

[MikeShaynePI]

I'd sure be special if I knew how to use a dictionary but didn't know how to read!



http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/gymnophobia

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gymnophobia&x=0&y=0

[matchesmalone]

Nope, I'm not a gymnophobe, just an opponent of cheesily pseudo-sexy comic art. It's as bad as hackneyed plots, and there's more of it these days. That's all. But you, sir, give every indication of being a homophobe.

[MikeShaynePI]

But you, sir, give every indication of being a homophobe.

Is that right, Never-nude? So, what's the checklist on that? 1. Ask someone if they're a "'mo"? Short list.

[matchesmalone]

Is that right, Never-nude? So, what's the checklist on that? 1. Ask someone if they're a "'mo"? Short list.

I know you can't be expected to remember something you wrote 10 minutes ago, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by matchesmalone
Thanks for your classy reply.

The homophobia shown in response to my comments says a lot.

Who said I was afraid of 'mos?

The fact that you can't get past using the term "'mo", twice, surely seems to indicate homophobia.

[MikeShaynePI]

I know you can't be expected to remember something you wrote 10 minutes ago, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by matchesmalone
Thanks for your classy reply.

The homophobia shown in response to my comments says a lot.

Who said I was afraid of 'mos?

The fact that you can't get past using the term "'mo", twice, surely seems to indicate homophobia.
No, I used it once because it was funny. I used it twice because it bothered you. I have no problem getting past it. And using the term "mo" twice is EVERY indication of homophobia?

[matchesmalone]

No, I used it once because it was funny. I used it twice because it bothered you. And I have no problem getting past it.

So you acknowledge that you are trolling. Sweet.

PS - Sorry it took a minute to write back, I was temporarily devastated by the wit and brutal aptness of your new name for me, "Never-nude". So funny! I'll never live that one down! Ouch! Stop! You're killin' me!!!

[Kenro]

I've been disappointed by how far DC has pushed gratuitous cheesecake lately.

Daniel Acuna's interpretation of Phantom Lady, with giant, shiny breasts, is gross, not sexy.

In Action Comics, Carlos Pacheco has been showing Lois Lane in skimpy underwear for no apparent reason.

This week's Detective Comics cover by Simone Bianchi shows Poison Ivy wearing an amount of clothes that wouldn't pass at a strip club - too revealing. And the Clooneyesque Batman just seems to be (mentally) drooling over her.

DC has typically been a bit classier than this. Very disappointing.

I really don't have an issue with that. Lois was dressed like for a reason (to celebrate an anniversary of some kind - it was a special occassion).

[matchesmalone]

No, I used it once because it was funny. I used it twice because it bothered you. I have no problem getting past it. And using the term "mo" twice is EVERY indication of homophobia?

Yes. Now go troll elsewhere.

[MikeShaynePI]

Yes. Now go troll elsewhere.
Yet everyone seems to agree with me.

[diana_fan]

I really don't have an issue with that. Lois was dressed like for a reason (to celebrate an anniversary of some kind - it was a special occassion).

Don't confuse the issue with FACTS! Sheesh.

[matchesmalone]

Yet everyone seems to agree with me.

Yep, every other troll agrees with you.

[JT Skywalker]

I really don't have an issue with that. Lois was dressed like for a reason (to celebrate an anniversary of some kind - it was a special occassion).

The anniversary of their first flight together.

Now, if you wanna talk cheesecake, talk about Howard Chaykin's Hawkgirl. Every excuse they can use to get Kendra down to her skivvies, they've used. ;)

~JTS

[Hobowatcher]

I really don't have an issue with that. Lois was dressed like for a reason (to celebrate an anniversary of some kind - it was a special occassion).
But does she have to have that patent leather squid haircut?

[diana_fan]

Yep, every other troll agrees with you.

Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. Good lord. Get over yourself.

[MikeShaynePI]

Yep, every other troll agrees with you.
Hear that everyone? You're all trolls, and this mythophobic bastard is persecuting you.

[matchesmalone]

Hear that everyone? You're all trolls, and this mythophobic bastard is persecuting you.

If you get a Venn diagram or a logic book out you'll see that you've misinterpreted my comment.

[MikeShaynePI]

If you get a Venn diagram or a logic book out you'll see that you've misinterpreted my comment.
I say everyone else agrees with me. You say every other troll agrees with me. Therefore everyone else = troll.

[matchesmalone]

That's as illogical as... being afraid of gay people. Fitting.

[Hokeyboy]

What are you, a 'mo or something?
LMAO :D :D :D

[dairylives]

Stop bitching, you two, you both sound like 6th graders.... one of you guys is gonna get banned.


That said, the cheesecake thing......not a huge fan of gratuitious T&A, especially with supposedly athletic women. It just doesnt make sense.

[matchesmalone]

Stop bitching, you two, you both sound like 6th graders.... one of you guys is gonna get banned.


That said, the cheesecake thing......not a huge fan of gratuitious T&A, especially with supposedly athletic women. It just doesnt make sense.

Thanks for the suggestion dairylives, I will take your advice and not respond any further to the um, interpersonal stuff.

You raise a good point - female Olympic athletes, for instance, don't tend to have stripper breasts.

[Hokeyboy]

Yep, every other troll agrees with you.
Another "troll" piping in. Overly-sexualized images of women (AND men) have been a staple of comics and graphic media for time immemorial. In all honesty, you need to let go of your Purityrannical knee-jerk indignation and just accept it.

[Gail Simone]

You forgot to mention the naked Giganta in this week's Atom and the naked Knockout(I feel like I got that name wrong, but I think that is it) in the last issue of Secret Six. But anyways, what was you complaint? *goes back to drooling*


Yes, but Atom himself was completely nude in issue one for several pages, Mad Hatter, Catman, lots of guys I write end up nude for some perverted reason.

Nudity is awesome.

Gail

[Gail Simone]

Her name is Prof. Zeul. So, unless there are two of them running around, and they both grow to astounding heights, I am guessing it is the same one.

But the ATOM story and the WW story don't seem to mesh too well.

It's true to some degree...they don't conflict directly, but they could mesh better. We're working on it and I think you'll see it fits better in the coming issues.

Gail

[diana_fan]

Yes, but Atom himself was completely nude in issue one for several pages, Mad Hatter, Catman, lots of guys I write end up nude for some perverted reason.

Nudity is awesome.

Gail


See! Gail isn't a gymnophobe!

:)

It's true to some degree...they don't conflict directly, but they could mesh better. We're working on it and I think you'll see it fits better in the coming issues.

Thanks Gail. I get that we don't have the whole story, so I was figuring something would happen along the line.

I'm very much enjoying ATOM, btw. Keep up the great work.

[Excelsior!]

Nudity is awesome

Quoted for extra truthyness!! :D

...

Hmm... didn't mean for that to sound quite so creepy, 'specially not in such a 'Quagmire'-esqe way.

Oh, well... ;)

[matchesmalone]

Gail, if you happen to keep reading - what do you think of this week's Detective Comics cover? And what do you think of Daniel Acuna's portrayal of Phantom Lady in Freedom Fighters? Thanks.

[Evan Waters]

Define sexualized. The males are made to look more sexually appealing that real life males are. That's close enough for me.

But the sexuality of male characters isn't emphasized as much. They're given more muscles because they're supposed to be strong, generally, but you don't get gratuitous butt or crotch shots very often, whereas in CIVIL WAR #2 it was apparently vital to the story that She-Hulk's rear be the focus of a panel where other characters were talking about something completely unrelated.

(I will make an exception for Simone and THE ATOM, which has generally featured equal-opportunity nekkidness.)

It just looks stupid. It distracts from the storytelling. I like cheesecake, but in the right context. It's possible to have too much of a good thing.

[New Way]

phantom Lady has always been a Cheescake character. Thats the whole point of the character isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Lady

[matchesmalone]

Here's a pretty good definition of sexualized:

Supergirl.

She's a 14-year-old who spends much of her first appearance nude, and finds some way to become nude around adults in many issues, such as when she was getting a tattoo. And Ian Churchill always draws her with perky breasts - tho' a bit sharper than they are rounded.

There's an undue emphasis on this character's sexual characteristics, and it has been consistent. Next I'm expecting her uniform to fall apart while she falls into a vat of light honey and then licks herself clean.

[matchesmalone]

phantom Lady has always been a Cheescake character. Thats the whole point of the character isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Lady

Yes, but I think in her current incarnation she looks more like a porn star.

[Evan Waters]

phantom Lady has always been a Cheescake character. Thats the whole point of the character isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Lady

I'd argue that the current incarnation goes beyond cheesecake and more into "Breasts do not work that way!" territory.

[jedifish]

But the sexuality of male characters isn't emphasized as much. They're given more muscles because they're supposed to be strong.


Exactly. Men are given bigger muscles. Women are given bigger boobs. The bigger the better in order to distract the villains.

[MikeShaynePI]

Exactly. Men are given bigger muscles. Women are given bigger boobs. The bigger the better in order to distract the villains.
That's why they should all wear tassles.

[jedifish]

That's why they should all wear tassles.

Works for me. It would give the prudes something to complain about.

[Evan Waters]

Exactly. Men are given bigger muscles. Women are given bigger boobs. The bigger the better in order to distract the villains.

Which says that for the female characters, being strong isn't as important as being attractive.

See the double standard?

[jedifish]

Which says that for the female characters, being strong isn't as important as being attractive.

See the double standard?

No .

[Hokeyboy]

That's why they should all wear tassles.
And tefillin!

[Hokeyboy]

Which says that for the female characters, being strong isn't as important as being attractive.

See the double standard?
Large, brawny, perfectly sculpted muscles on men aren't attractive?

Dude, I thought I was totally straight, but thinking about it I'm drooling like a 'mo. :p

[Defunct]

Which says that for the female characters, being strong isn't as important as being attractive.

See the double standard?
All it says is that the idealized visions of what men "should" look like and what women "should" look like are different. Welcome to Western Civilization.

[chap22]

Which says that for the female characters, being strong isn't as important as being attractive.

See the double standard?
*sigh* no it doesn't. generally a man's body is considered to be more attractive when it's stronger, so adding muscle still relates to attractiveness.


and for a final word, these artists draw to what sells. if you don't like big boobs and slim waists, or rock-hard abs and huge deltoids, either way quit buying. but until you do, that's how they'll draw 'em. it ain't rocket science...

[Hokeyboy]

Yes, but I think in her current incarnation she looks more like a porn star.
http://www.ibiblio.org/dlucas/images/image_helen.gif
<P><B>Will somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN??!!</b>

[matchesmalone]

Any of you openminded, freethinking, libertine adults (18+) care to respond to my comment on the undue sexualization of the current Supergirl, who I think is supposed to be 14? Do you enjoy '"sexy" portrayals of 14 year olds?

[Defunct]

Yes. I do.

Yum, let's read in to every single pose some sort of sexual exploitation of this teenage character. Yeah. That's the stuff.

[MikeShaynePI]

Any of you openminded, freethinking, libertine adults (18+) care to respond to my comment on the undue sexualization of the current Supergirl, who I think is supposed to be 14? Do you enjoy '"sexy" portrayals of 14 year olds?
Who the hell said she was 14? Maybe that's just what you want to think.

[dairylives]

Yes. I do.

Yum, let's read in to every single pose some sort of sexual exploitation of this teenage character. Yeah. That's the stuff.

i agree wholeheartedly with this post

[jedifish]

Any of you openminded, freethinking, libertine adults (18+) care to respond to my comment on the undue sexualization of the current Supergirl, who I think is supposed to be 14? Do you enjoy '"sexy" portrayals of 14 year olds?

Do I get turned on by it? No.

Am I bothered by it? No. She isn't wearing anything different than I've seen other teenagers wear.

Quite frankly, I don't see her as a 14 year old. I see her as a superhero. I suppose I should beat myself up because I wanted a 14 or 15 year old Jason Todd killed 18 years ago. But reality check. It's a comic character, not a real 14 year old.

[Hokeyboy]

Any of you openminded, freethinking, libertine adults (18+) care to respond to my comment on the undue sexualization of the current Supergirl, who I think is supposed to be 14? Do you enjoy '"sexy" portrayals of 14 year olds?
My GOD you're hung up on this. I read Supergirl and I don't see an overly sexualized book by any means. I see a pretty damn unreadable book due to lousy writing, but nothing that makes me want to run to confession and purge myself of sins.

I think you're reading and inferring WAY too much from it. You might want to ask yourself why.

[cabbitabe]

I say...if the woman in question isn't a prepubescent...then the artist can depict her however he/she wants ...well, with the company's approval. (or clearly labeled as Porn...ie "Lost Girls")

It's art...and it's COMIC BOOKS!


Man...if this topic was on an anime board....you folks would be skeeved out by dojinshi art....talk about underaged and sexualized...I call that kiddy porn. yeeeeucccch.

[SouthtownKid]

It bugs me, because my wife looks at my comic pile each week, and while I actually do read for the stories and the quality art, if she sees enough Phantom Lady's and other pneumatic women, she's not nearly as supportive of my hobby. Plus, if you're trying to expand beyond an overwhelmingly male readship, that's gonna have to change.My take is that for the market to expand, we need to have more variety of product, not remove things from existing product. Many women tend (I say "tend"... obviously many people will be exceptions) not to like movies that revolve around nothing more than big action with huge explosions every 5 seconds. The solution to this problem is NOT to remove explosions from all movies (because I like explosions), but to ALSO make movies without explosions.

I'm sorry for all the people who either don't like gratuitously depicted women, or catch flak from others for buying books with them...I do sypathize. But I happen to be perfectly fine with them (as long as I don't feel like I'm being completely pandered to), and I don't want all books sanitized to the point where they are perfectly safe and won't offend anyone.

And second, the men are an idealized version, but the muscles in most cases, do serve a purpose. Superheroes are athletic, strong and perform great feats of strength and endurance. Show me how super-gigantic breasts, and ultra thin waists help female heroes accomplish that.That's rationalization. It's entertainment...that's all. The male characters having muscles doesn't mean they have to walk around in outfits that make them look nude with lines drawn on to show where their underwear is above their impossibly skintight pants. They would be just as strong wearing less skintight clothes. Same with the women characters. It's escapist fantasy. No need to read more into it than that.

[New Way]

My take is that for the market to expand, we need to have more variety of product, not remove things from existing product. Many women tend (I say "tend"... obviously many people will be exceptions) not to like movies that revolve around nothing more than big action with huge explosions every 5 seconds. The solution to this problem is NOT to remove explosions from all movies (because I like explosions), but to ALSO make movies without explosions.

I'm sorry for all the people who either don't like gratuitously depicted women, or catch flak from others for buying books with them...I do sypathize. But I happen to be perfectly fine with them (as long as I don't feel like I'm being completely pandered to), and I don't want all books sanitized to the point where they are perfectly safe and won't offend anyone.

That's rationalization. It's entertainment...that's all. The male characters having muscles doesn't mean they have to walk around in outfits that make them look nude with lines drawn on to show where their underwear is above their impossibly skintight pants. They would be just as strong wearing less skintight clothes. Same with the women characters. It's escapist fantasy. No need to read more into it than that.

I agree we should patronize titles we like and stop buying the ones we don't, thats the only way to change anything in this industry.

[matchesmalone]

Thanks to all who have commented intelligently, pro or con, on this issue instead of making anti-gay jokes about anyone who doesn't care for the way female characters are portrayed these days.

[diana_fan]

Any of you openminded, freethinking, libertine adults (18+) care to respond to my comment on the undue sexualization of the current Supergirl, who I think is supposed to be 14? Do you enjoy '"sexy" portrayals of 14 year olds?

First, she isn't 14. She never was 14 in the book. If you keep de-ageing her, she's going to Superzygote, the Last Cell of Krypton.

Second, as a 16 or 17 year old? That's nothing. I go to a lot of Detroit Tiger games. I see teenage girls walking around during day games wearing tiny bikini tops and short skirts. Have you ever been to a beach, for instance? Or, say, Los Angeles? Or anywhere in Europe during the summer?

Third, she's old enough and mature enough to be aware of her sexuality, to be aware of the effect she can have on people. She doesn't hunch over, or wear a burka. She's young, she's fit, she's super-powered, and she knows it. So, she's playful, but also sweet. You notice, that when not mind-controlled (SG #7), she has only kissed a couple of guys, and both times innocently on the cheek. It's not like she is some kind of sex-pot, running all over sleeping with anyone in sight (Roy Harper, Hal Jordan, Dick Grayson ... the man-slut brigade; for the sarcasm-impared, it's a joke).

In other words, other than a few kisses on the cheek, and a very young girl crush (which lasted about two minutes, as they often do) on Nightwing, there is almost NO evidence of Kara being portrayed sexually. (Again, when not mind controlled, whether by Saturn Queen or Darkseid.) What she is is an incredibly fit young woman who wears more clothing than most female athletes (watch a track and field event, or beach volleyball, or gymnastics, or whatever).

Finally, Supergirl is hardly some poor, weak, vulnerable girl. She's one of the most powerful beings in the Universe. I'm pretty sure that she can wear whatever the heck she wants to wear, and there's little anyone else can say about it.

[New Way]

First, she isn't 14. She never was 14 in the book. If you keep de-ageing her, she's going to Superzygote, the Last Cell of Krypton.

Second, as a 16 or 17 year old? That's nothing. I go to a lot of Detroit Tiger games. I see teenage girls walking around during day games wearing tiny bikini tops and short skirts. Have you ever been to a beach, for instance? Or, say, Los Angeles? Or anywhere in Europe during the summer?

Third, she's old enough and mature enough to be aware of her sexuality, to be aware of the effect she can have on people. She doesn't hunch over, or wear a burka. She's young, she's fit, she's super-powered, and she knows it. So, she's playful, but also sweet. You notice, that when not mind-controlled (SG #7), she has only kissed a couple of guys, and both times innocently on the cheek. It's not like she is some kind of sex-pot, running all over sleeping with anyone in sight (Roy Harper, Hal Jordan, Dick Grayson ... the man-slut brigade; for the sarcasm-impared, it's a joke).

In other words, other than a few kisses on the cheek, and a very young girl crush (which lasted about two minutes, as they often do) on Nightwing, there is almost NO evidence of Kara being portrayed sexually. (Again, when not mind controlled, whether by Saturn Queen or Darkseid.) What she is is an incredibly fit young woman who wears more clothing than most female athletes (watch a track and field event, or beach volleyball, or gymnastics, or whatever).

Finally, Supergirl is hardly some poor, weak, vulnerable girl. She's one of the most powerful beings in the Universe. I'm pretty sure that she can wear whatever the heck she wants to wear, and there's little anyone else can say about it.

so in your opinion when does the depiction of underaged girls become inappropriate?

[Excelsior!]

Here's a pretty good definition of sexualized:

Supergirl.

She's a 14-year-old who spends much of her first appearance nude, and finds some way to become nude around adults in many issues, such as when she was getting a tattoo. And Ian Churchill always draws her with perky breasts - tho' a bit sharper than they are rounded.

There's an undue emphasis on this character's sexual characteristics, and it has been consistent. Next I'm expecting her uniform to fall apart while she falls into a vat of light honey and then licks herself clean.

I hate how K Z-L's been sacrificed to the Gods of Cheap Shocks and T&A. Waste of a character. :(

[Kolimar]

I've been disappointed by how far DC has pushed gratuitous cheesecake lately.

Daniel Acuna's interpretation of Phantom Lady, with giant, shiny breasts, is gross, not sexy.

In Action Comics, Carlos Pacheco has been showing Lois Lane in skimpy underwear for no apparent reason.

This week's Detective Comics cover by Simone Bianchi shows Poison Ivy wearing an amount of clothes that wouldn't pass at a strip club - too revealing. And the Clooneyesque Batman just seems to be (mentally) drooling over her.

DC has typically been a bit classier than this. Very disappointing.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Oh boy.... :p

[Kolimar]

First, she isn't 14. She never was 14 in the book. If you keep de-ageing her, she's going to Superzygote, the Last Cell of Krypton.

Second, as a 16 or 17 year old? That's nothing. I go to a lot of Detroit Tiger games. I see teenage girls walking around during day games wearing tiny bikini tops and short skirts. Have you ever been to a beach, for instance? Or, say, Los Angeles? Or anywhere in Europe during the summer?

Third, she's old enough and mature enough to be aware of her sexuality, to be aware of the effect she can have on people. She doesn't hunch over, or wear a burka. She's young, she's fit, she's super-powered, and she knows it. So, she's playful, but also sweet. You notice, that when not mind-controlled (SG #7), she has only kissed a couple of guys, and both times innocently on the cheek. It's not like she is some kind of sex-pot, running all over sleeping with anyone in sight (Roy Harper, Hal Jordan, Dick Grayson ... the man-slut brigade; for the sarcasm-impared, it's a joke).

In other words, other than a few kisses on the cheek, and a very young girl crush (which lasted about two minutes, as they often do) on Nightwing, there is almost NO evidence of Kara being portrayed sexually. (Again, when not mind controlled, whether by Saturn Queen or Darkseid.) What she is is an incredibly fit young woman who wears more clothing than most female athletes (watch a track and field event, or beach volleyball, or gymnastics, or whatever).

Finally, Supergirl is hardly some poor, weak, vulnerable girl. She's one of the most powerful beings in the Universe. I'm pretty sure that she can wear whatever the heck she wants to wear, and there's little anyone else can say about it.

Well said.

[diana_fan]

so in your opinion when does the depiction of underaged girls become inappropriate?

First, define "underage". Kara is not "underage", in terms of legally, in the vast majority of the world, and the vast majority of the US.

Second, this is all ink on paper. A drawing by an artist doesn't hurt any real people. Ask yourself this: why are you bothered by a drawing of Kara Zor-El (if, in fact you are bothered by it) in what is not a revealing outfit, but you aren't bothered by, for instance, a drawing of Poison Ivy sadistically feeding people to a plant?

It's ink. On paper. And the fact that some people don't seem to realize this is the real problem. When actual child pornography happens, *real* people, *real* children are hurt in the process. Horribly hurt. When someone draws a picture of a child engaged in sexual conduct, no one is hurt.

Kara is not a child, anyway. She is a young woman. I think the fact that society, particularly in the United States, wants to extend childhood to the early twenties is ludicrous and, actually, harmful.

As to what is and what is not appropriate, I know inappropriate when I see it. It's that simple. But I will tell you this: Donna Troy beating Cassie to within an inch of her life was not inappropriate, so Kara making a silly joke based around the similar sounds of 'S' and ass sure as hell isn't going to bother me.

[TheLizard207]

I'm sure Jesus is sobbing in to his pillow over Phantom Lady's huge tits. . .

Chill out, dude. If you find breats so disgusting, there are plenty of men in spandex shorts running around in the DCU.

Which book are these in??? I'll pick it up;)

[Auburn]

You raise a good point - female Olympic athletes, for instance, don't tend to have stripper breasts.

It's about speed. The bouncing throws their stride off from the ideal which makes it harder for women with large breasts to compete at higher levels of stuff where running speed is important or so I've been told.

[MikeShaynePI]

You raise a good point - female Olympic athletes, for instance, don't tend to have stripper breasts.

If the Olympics wanted better ratings they would.

[Ghostrider]

I love cheesecake. it tastes great. Man. now im hungry. thanks.

[Evan Waters]

All it says is that the idealized visions of what men "should" look like and what women "should" look like are different. Welcome to Western Civilization.

But shouldn't it be more important for a female superhero to be strong than to be pretty?

[enediol]

Fine by me. If you don't like looking at scantilly clad women then go hang out with the old farts at the old folks home.

[Habitual]

It's about speed. The bouncing throws their stride off from the ideal which makes it harder for women with large breasts to compete at higher levels of stuff where running speed is important or so I've been told.

It actually has to do with the amount of body fat that a woman needs to maintain mensis.

Hab

[SouthtownKid]

But shouldn't it be more important for a female superhero to be strong than to be pretty?In the real world -- sure. Who in the blue heck thinks we are talking about the real world here?

What we are talking about is a form of entertainment aimed primarily at teenaged and twenty-something males. If the industry wants to expand, it needs to start creating more properties aimed at other demographics -- NOT make the current properties less enjoyable for their intended audience. The idea that you want to ignore the basic principle that sex sells, is kind of fake-noble.

'Uncle Sam & the Freedom Fighters' is not going to suddenly be an irresistible read for girls who don't read comics, just because you make Phantom Girl flat-chested and give her an outfit that covers head to toe. You will not get one single new person to start reading comics that way. What you will do is alienate some of the people currently reading and enjoying the book.

To use the action movie analogy again: If there are people who don't enjoy action movies, you don't cater to them by making action movies less action-y. That serves no freaking purpose at all except to make everyone miserable. What you do is make other, non-action movies in addition to your action movie output.

[Hokeyboy]

But shouldn't it be more important for a female superhero to be strong than to be pretty?
You ever read any classic mythology? Most of the goddesses were drop-dead gorgeous in their description, even if they were the Goddesses of something trivial, say the hearth or sandals. The ones that weren't depicted as beautiful were hideous creatures bent on the destruction of some force of goodness.

It's archetypes, baby. Get over it.

(And I think Hephaestus was the only "ugly" God, but that's because his Dad threw him off the roof and it was an ugly landing.)

[skarekrow]

Thank god, this dude has never seen any artwork, by Campbell or Turner. Or even Opened All-Star Batman and Robin and seen Lee's artwork of Vicki Vale or he'd have a conniption and a coronary.

Have to dig up some current issues of Hawkgirl, because I'm a perv, who loves artwork. :O
If you don't like the artwork, treat the book like it's being drawn by Liefield and don't read it. Unless it Teen Titans. I don't care what anyone says, that story line was great.

[AdamYJ]

The whole thing about what's sexualized on women versus what's sexualized on men is tricky. It's partially because certain sexualized characteristics on men could be seen as utilitarian, while that's not always the case with women.

It is interesting to note, though, that the men probably shouldn't even be drawn the way they are. If superheroes are generally meant to be all-around good athletes, they shouldn't be as bulky as they sometimes get. Their build should be closer to that of a swimmer or gymnast compared to that of a bodybuilder. Slender yet defined. Old Silver Age artists like Gil Kane and Carmine Infantino had it pretty well down.

[matchesmalone]

The whole thing about what's sexualized on women versus what's sexualized on men is tricky. It's partially because certain sexualized characteristics on men could be seen as utilitarian, while that's not always the case with women.

It is interesting to note, though, that the men probably shouldn't even be drawn the way they are. If superheroes are generally meant to be all-around good athletes, they shouldn't be as bulky as they sometimes get. Their build should be closer to that of a swimmer or gymnast compared to that of a bodybuilder. Slender yet defined. Old Silver Age artists like Gil Kane and Carmine Infantino had it pretty well down.

That's by far the most intelligent post on this thread. Thanks.

Many males writing here equate giant breasts and skimpy clothing with beauty. In fact, there are many unattractive women with giant breasts and skimpy clothes, and many beautiful women with less-than-giant breasts and more-than-skimpy clothes.

[diana_fan]

Many males writing here equate giant breasts and skimpy clothing with beauty. In fact, there are many unattractive women with giant breasts and skimpy clothes, and many beautiful women with less-than-giant breasts and more-than-skimpy clothes.

Who here said that "giant breasts and skimpy clothing" equates with beauty? Who?

Why not focus on what people have actually *said*, instead of trying to put words in their mouths.

[SouthtownKid]

Many males writing here equate giant breasts and skimpy clothing with beauty. In fact, there are many unattractive women with giant breasts and skimpy clothes, and many beautiful women with less-than-giant breasts and more-than-skimpy clothes.Congratulations on being so above it all.

The fact is, teenaged boys typically aren't obsessed with beauty; they're obsessed with breasts. You're not, and it's not the end of the world, but neither do you speak for every other human being on the planet.

Maybe you should worry more about reading things you enjoy, and worry less about changing things that other people are already enjoying.

[matchesmalone]

Who here said that "giant breasts and skimpy clothing" equates with beauty? Who?

Why not focus on what people have actually *said*, instead of trying to put words in their mouths.

Anyone who calls me gay (I think 3 people did that on this thread) for objecting to the exaggerated proportions and minimal clothing. The implication is that I don't like attractive women, so I must be gay. So on that basis, they're saying that giant breasts + skimpy clothing = attractive.

[matchesmalone]

Who here said that "giant breasts and skimpy clothing" equates with beauty? Who?

Why not focus on what people have actually *said*, instead of trying to put words in their mouths.

PS - it's not putting words in anyone's mouth to see a theme among several individuals' statements and then observe that "many equate A and B with C". I was also referring to other threads I've read and participated in.

[Defunct]

Anyone who calls me gay (I think 3 people did that on this thread) for objecting to the exaggerated proportions and minimal clothing. The implication is that I don't like attractive women, so I must be gay. So on that basis, they're saying that giant breasts + skimpy clothing = attractive.
The people in this thread cannot be held accountable for your faulty assumptions.

[diana_fan]

Anyone who calls me gay (I think 3 people did that on this thread) for objecting to the exaggerated proportions and minimal clothing. The implication is that I don't like attractive women, so I must be gay. So on that basis, they're saying that giant breasts + skimpy clothing = attractive.

Oh. That's clear as ... mud.

No one here said "giant breasts and skimpy clothing" equal beauty. No one. Not one single person.

[matchesmalone]

The people in this thread cannot be held accountable for your faulty assumptions.

What in the world are you talking about?

[matchesmalone]

Oh. That's clear as ... mud.

No one here said "giant breasts and skimpy clothing" equal beauty. No one. Not one single person.

Yes, no one S-A-I-D that. I never said anyone S-A-I-D that. I said that people here (referring both to this thread and others) E-Q-U-A-T-E-D them. They have also I-M-P-L-I-E-D that and I have I-N-F-E-R-R-E-D that from what they have written here and elsewhere.

I have not cut and pasted verbatim what people have written on this board. What I have done is called S-Y-N-T-H-E-S-I-Z-I-N-G information.

[Defunct]

What in the world are you talking about?
I'm talking about you making things up. That you're blaming OTHERS for things they haven't said, and basing your diatribes on your own faulty assumptions.


Would you like me to explain what a faulty assumption is?

[Hokeyboy]

I have not cut and pasted verbatim what people have written on this board. What I have done is called S-Y-N-T-H-E-S-I-Z-I-N-G information.

Oh... a Bullsh!t Artist! Why didn't you say so?

[matchesmalone]

I'm talking about you making things up. That you're blaming OTHERS for things they haven't said, and basing your diatribes on your own faulty assumptions.


Would you like me to explain what a faulty assumption is?

I'm not blaming anyone for anything, other than the folks who made hateful and stupid gay jokes about me.

[matchesmalone]

Oh... a Bullsh!t Artist! Why didn't you say so?

Because that's an oversimplification.

Is every magazine article you ever read a verbatim transcript of the entire conversation between interviewer and interviewee? No.

Does every post someone spends 2 minutes writing here look back on the previous 50 posts? No.

[Mutnt Teachr]

I would like more selection of female characters that aren't hyper-sexualized. Forgive me for using Marvel examples, but I enjoy how Spider-girl and the female Runaways do not rely on sexuality in the same way (tight, revealing clothing) but are still strong characters. I understand sex sells and this is a male-driven market, but I think there could be more female characters that do not exploit their sexuality.

[Hokeyboy]

Because that's an oversimplification.

Is every magazine article you ever read a verbatim transcript of the entire conversation between interviewer and interviewee? No.

Does every post someone spends 2 minutes writing here look back on the previous 50 posts? No.
Allow me to S-Y-N-T-H-E-S-I-Z-E this for you. The only person who hinted you were gay was the dude way back on the first page who called you a 'mo.




But you cry like one.

[SouthtownKid]

I would like more selection of female characters that aren't hyper-sexualized. Forgive me for using Marvel examples, but I enjoy how Spider-girl and the female Runaways do not rely on sexuality in the same way (tight, revealing clothing) but are still strong characters. I understand sex sells and this is a male-driven market, but I think there could be more female characters that do not exploit their sexuality.I agree with that 100%, and those are great examples. I think the key is variety, not in having all of one or the other.

[matchesmalone]

Allow me to S-Y-N-T-H-E-S-I-Z-E this for you. The only person who hinted you were gay was the dude way back on the first page who called you a 'mo.

But you cry like one.

You're wrong, but I won't waste any more energy on anyone who uses such a term, because anyone who tolerates the use of, and then uses, degrading terms for homosexuals is a homophobe. I have no patience for homophobes, and no respect for any thoughts they might have, so I won't respond any further to your comments.

You might want to consider, though, why you use pejorative slang for homosexuals so lightly. There are many young men who are gay and are not honest enough with themselves to acknowledge it early on. Such men are typically outwardly homophobic. Good luck, however it works out for you.

[matchesmalone]

I just read the New Avengers issue spotlighting Spiderwoman and pencilled by Oliver Coipel. She had realistic anatomic proportions and was shown fighting in her underwear in a way that was not particularly sexual - it just owed to the plot. I'd like to see more of that type of artwork, where the artwork and its portrayal of women complements the story rather than distracting you from it.

[Hokeyboy]

You're wrong, but I won't waste any more energy on anyone who uses such a term, because anyone who tolerates the use of, and then uses, degrading terms for homosexuals is a homophobe. I have no patience for homophobes, and no respect for any thoughts they might have, so I won't respond any further to your comments.

You might want to consider, though, why you use pejorative slang for homosexuals so lightly. There are many young men who are gay and are not honest enough with themselves to acknowledge it early on. Such men are typically outwardly homophobic. Good luck, however it works out for you.
Gather round kiddies!! You'll find this really interesting. What we got here is the classic bait-and-switch. See, when people like matchesmalone find themselves on the losing side of an argument, their only recourse is to whip out the "HOMOPHOBIC" argument. Then, in a classic slice of hypocritical juiciness, they then turn around and accuse their opponent of being a homosexual themselves as a means of degradation.

The fine art of 21st Century Debate. God, I love it so.

(And for the record, I haven't used any perjorative terms for homosexuals towards anyone anywhere in this thread. You big crybaby.)

[Mutnt Teachr]

Sigh. . . I'm entering into this.

My understanding. . .

After commenting that he believed women were unfairly portrayed in comics, MikeShaynePI asked MatchesMalone "What are you, a 'mo or something?"

Statements like that imply that:
Your opinion is bad.
The logical reason for having a bad opinion is being gay.

Thus, Matchesmalone accused MikeShaynePI of being homophobic.

Whether or not MikeShaynePI is homophobic, the above quotation implies an unfair judgement against homosexuals.

That being said, Hokeyboy was right. Matchesmalone sunk to his opponent's level by using "the classic bate-and-switch.

The only thing worse than all of this is us idiots who keep derailing the thread. Unless homophobia and accusations thereof are related to the portrayal of women in comic books.

[skarekrow]

here's a question, why is Superman drawn so cut and toned? I mean last time I checked in order to build muscle mass you needed to do resistance training and things like that right? Superman, as of now, doesn't know his limits physically. I haven't seen him not be able to lift anything. Why can't he look like an average schmoe as opposed to a freaking stereo type?

uh...uh...uh... Because it's cheesecake for the fangirls. it's a double sided sword. and it won't go away, unless you happen to rewrite the Comic Code.

[jza1218]

You're wrong, but I won't waste any more energy on anyone who uses such a term, because anyone who tolerates the use of, and then uses, degrading terms for homosexuals is a homophobe. I have no patience for homophobes, and no respect for any thoughts they might have, so I won't respond any further to your comments.

You might want to consider, though, why you use pejorative slang for homosexuals so lightly. There are many young men who are gay and are not honest enough with themselves to acknowledge it early on. Such men are typically outwardly homophobic. Good luck, however it works out for you.

HAHA...you only learned what pejorative meant when MattBrady used it to diss you...

You are horrible at this debate stuff

[Defunct]

You're wrong, but I won't waste any more energy on anyone who uses such a term, because anyone who tolerates the use of, and then uses, degrading terms for homosexuals is a homophobe

Does that include my friends who are gay and use THAT AWFUL HORRIBLE TERM THAT MEANS YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY A BIGOT all the damned time? Because they'd be shocked to learn of their self-loathing.

[MikeShaynePI]

Allow me to S-Y-N-T-H-E-S-I-Z-E this for you. The only person who hinted you were gay was the dude way back on the first page who called you a 'mo.

Um. No. I asked him if he was a 'mo. I didn't call him one. Get your facts straight.

[Ghost]

If you let your wife decide what is good for you to look at you're a _____.

[Evan Waters]

Gather round kiddies!! You'll find this really interesting. What we got here is the classic bait-and-switch. See, when people like matchesmalone find themselves on the losing side of an argument, their only recourse is to whip out the "HOMOPHOBIC" argument. Then, in a classic slice of hypocritical juiciness, they then turn around and accuse their opponent of being a homosexual themselves as a means of degradation.

The fine art of 21st Century Debate. God, I love it so.

(And for the record, I haven't used any perjorative terms for homosexuals towards anyone anywhere in this thread. You big crybaby.)

You did, however, say this:

The only person who hinted you were gay was the dude way back on the first page who called you a 'mo.

But you cry like one.

So, you used a negative stereotype about homosexuals ("you cry like a gay guy").

Lots of folks get defensive when it's suggested that superhero comics aren't necessarily the best medium for softcore porn. I don't know why, it's not like you can't find pictures of boobies anywhere else...

[Evan Waters]

In the real world -- sure. Who in the blue heck thinks we are talking about the real world here?

What we are talking about is a form of entertainment aimed primarily at teenaged and twenty-something males. If the industry wants to expand, it needs to start creating more properties aimed at other demographics -- NOT make the current properties less enjoyable for their intended audience. The idea that you want to ignore the basic principle that sex sells, is kind of fake-noble.

I don't want to ignore the principle. I want QUALITY BOOKS, and quality books generally don't say to me "Hey, look, a nearly-naked woman! Are you interested yet?!" It reeks of desperation.

'Uncle Sam & the Freedom Fighters' is not going to suddenly be an irresistible read for girls who don't read comics, just because you make Phantom Girl flat-chested and give her an outfit that covers head to toe. You will not get one single new person to start reading comics that way. What you will do is alienate some of the people currently reading and enjoying the book.

Anyone alienated from a book by a lack of boobie shots is- a sad individual, really.

[Evan Waters]

You ever read any classic mythology? Most of the goddesses were drop-dead gorgeous in their description, even if they were the Goddesses of something trivial, say the hearth or sandals. The ones that weren't depicted as beautiful were hideous creatures bent on the destruction of some force of goodness.

It's archetypes, baby. Get over it.

So, because our old myths are patriarchal and misogynist (the ancient Greeks being a sexist culture even by the standards of the ancient world), all our modern writing ought to be sexist too?

[SouthtownKid]

I don't want to ignore the principle. I want QUALITY BOOKS, and quality books generally don't say to me "Hey, look, a nearly-naked woman! Are you interested yet?!" It reeks of desperation.You think that a female who was alienated by a "nearly-naked woman" wouldn't also be alienated by a 22-page story that contained 18 pages of people punching each other? QUALITY BOOK! You're deluding yourself. You could have made the exact same type of complaints about the pulp magazines when they were around -- Doc Savage, the Shadow, Tarzan, and so many others -- and you'd still have been missing the point that these kind of adventure stories are meant to entertain.

When was the last time a normal, monthly super-hero comic really made you think about the nature of existence or the meaning of life? Come on, give me an issue number. I'm not saying you can't get that from comics; I happen to believe you can. But that's not the purpose of a super-hero monthly, and I can't think of one off hand that did.

And "reeking of desperation" would work better if editors were asking artists to put that stuff in, when mostly it's just a case of being what and how artists enjoy drawing. There's a difference to me, between being pandered to, and an artist who is just enjoying him/herself.

Anyone alienated from a book by a lack of boobie shots is- a sad individual, really.Thank goodness you were never a teenager, I guess. I don't know where all this pretending super-hero comics aren't intended primarilly as escapist entertainment for young people comes from.

So, because our old myths are patriarchal and misogynist (the ancient Greeks being a sexist culture even by the standards of the ancient world), all our modern writing ought to be sexist too?What, are you playing some kind of crazy game of devil's advocate, or something? Or are we trying to ignore sexist representations of women on TV or in movies? How about novels? Music videos?

Bottom line: if this wasn't what the majority of comics' target audience wanted to see, we wouldn't be seeing it... because it wouldn't sell. It's that simple.

[JustAnothaSucka]

......

my new favorite aspect of this entire message board lately, is the tribe of posters out there that find the time to endlessly supply the internet with examples of how the world is a terrible place because the things we look up to can never met all our standards at the same exact time.

[matchesmalone]

If you let your wife decide what is good for you to look at you're a _____.

If you're going to be intolerant, you should at least have the courage to use the intolerant language that represents your feelings instead of literally asking everyone to fill in the blanks.

[matchesmalone]

Does that include my friends who are gay and use THAT AWFUL HORRIBLE TERM THAT MEANS YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY A BIGOT all the damned time? Because they'd be shocked to learn of their self-loathing.

Please invite your gay friends to register and document this. I've never heard that term used by a gay person, much less in a non-pejorative sense. And then please have them look at how the term was originally used on this board and give us their opinion as to whether that was a bigoted use of the term or this hypothetical non-bigoted use of the term that you speak of. Thanks.

[Nobody]

here's a question, why is Superman drawn so cut and toned? I mean last time I checked in order to build muscle mass you needed to do resistance training and things like that right? Superman, as of now, doesn't know his limits physically. I haven't seen him not be able to lift anything. Why can't he look like an average schmoe as opposed to a freaking stereo type?

Man, I've been saying this for years. Right on, skarekrow.

[GraniteCity]

here's a question, why is Superman drawn so cut and toned? I mean last time I checked in order to build muscle mass you needed to do resistance training and things like that right? Superman, as of now, doesn't know his limits physically. I haven't seen him not be able to lift anything. Why can't he look like an average schmoe as opposed to a freaking stereo type?

uh...uh...uh... Because it's cheesecake for the fangirls. it's a double sided sword. and it won't go away, unless you happen to rewrite the Comic Code.I think when it's a man instead of a woman, the term is beefcake. Not that I know. Or care. Forget I said anything.

Apparentlly, Yellow Solar Radiation = Kryptonian Steriods. Check that urine sample!

[Evan Waters]

You think that a female who was alienated by a "nearly-naked woman" wouldn't also be alienated by a 22-page story that contained 18 pages of people punching each other? QUALITY BOOK! You're deluding yourself. You could have made the exact same type of complaints about the pulp magazines when they were around -- Doc Savage, the Shadow, Tarzan, and so many others -- and you'd still have been missing the point that these kind of adventure stories are meant to entertain.

Just being entertaining doesn't justify the kind of genuinely dumb sexual pandering that these books so often employ. You can be entertaining without telling your audience "we think you're a mouth-breathing adolescent who'll accept any old ____ as long as there are tits in it."

Thank goodness you were never a teenager, I guess. I don't know where all this pretending super-hero comics aren't intended primarilly as escapist entertainment for young people comes from.

If anything, comics are being bought more by twenty-somethings these days.

What, are you playing some kind of crazy game of devil's advocate, or something? Or are we trying to ignore sexist representations of women on TV or in movies? How about novels? Music videos?

This is a comics forum.

And honestly, I think the problem is worse in this medium. Your average action movie doesn't randomly cut to a shot of a female character's ass in the midst of a dialogue scene. The women of, say, BUFFY wore clothing that made sense for their characters.

Bottom line: if this wasn't what the majority of comics' target audience wanted to see, we wouldn't be seeing it... because it wouldn't sell. It's that simple.

And hostility towards women is a problem in fandom too. Plenty of female comics fans have horror stories about their treatment at comics stores and conventions.

[Evan Waters]

I think when it's a man instead of a woman, the term is beefcake. Not that I know. Or care. Forget I said anything.

Of course, Superman wears more clothing than Supergirl, his stories don't feature excuse after excuse to show him naked, the artists don't linger on his bulging muscles...

[GraniteCity]

Bottom line: if this wasn't what the majority of comics' target audience wanted to see, we wouldn't be seeing it... because it wouldn't sell. It's that simple.Several other posters have made this general argument, that this is what it takes to sell comics and that's that. I would suggest that it's possible that just the opposite is true. Since comics sales generally are a mere fraction of what they were back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, it's possible that the drop is due at least in part to the cheesecake quotient. If, hypothetically, the sales of the average DC or Marvel comic is less than half what it used to be, and the current readers are buying the book for the cheesecake, that still means that there is a larger potential audience out there that might buy the book without the cheesecake.

Since the 1960s, the comics industry has come to be dominated by the generations of comics fans raised on the medium and acclimated to it's unique content and visual style. As a result, the industry and comic fandom has become an extremely insular community that is largely inaccessible to the vast body of potentional readers who do not find this material to their taste and do not have the indoctrination or cognitive tools to appreciate the typical comic book. Some of the aspects of comics which I think may be unappealing to the public include the fetishistic visual treatment of the characters (including the exagerated anatomy, the garish costuming and absurdist equipment and weaponry), the self refferential narrative style (including the frequent repetition of "origin" stories), the intentionally garbled visual storytelling, the overdone coloring, the incredible shrinking lettering and the common use of sprawling serialized stories without clearly defined beginning, middle or end.

I agree that the cheesecake factor is out of hand, but more than that I suspect that no one in the industry has stopped to even ask themselves the question. Whether the level of sexual content is good or bad, the larger problem is that the industry generally seems to be flying blind. Assuming that there is anything good or bad going on in the business, you can't fix (or improve) what you aren't aware of.

And, assuming that someone is liable to accuse me of being a prude, I humbly submit that's not the case. I love pornography. I do not particularly like inferior entertainment trying to pass itself off inferior pornography. The comics we are talking about are not in the porn business and may toy with suggestive content but can never and will never actually deliver the goods. What they are doing is not just in bad taste, it's dishonest. Until they are willing to slap a Triple-X rating on Supergirl or Phantom Lady and carry the porn/S & M innuendo to a satisfying conclusion , I would prefer that they put on some clothes and get back to telling a readable story.

[matchesmalone]

Some of the aspects of comics which I think may be unappealing to the public include the fetishistic visual treatment of the characters (including the exagerated anatomy, the garish costuming and absurdist equipment and weaponry), the self refferential narrative style (including the frequent repetition of "origin" stories), the intentionally garbled visual storytelling, the overdone coloring, the incredible shrinking lettering and the common use of sprawling serialized stories without clearly defined beginning, middle or end.


Gosh, why are we all reading this crap : )

I think part of why the industry doesn't address the concerns you mention is that there are many fans who accept anything they are presented with - as evidenced by many of the comments here, which boil down to "shut up and go away" or "that's just the way things are, get used to it".

Heaven forbid a business listen to its customers, and heaven forbid those customers feel like they should have any input.

The sexist and/or homophobic comments on this thread seem to all come from the most complacent readers.

[GraniteCity]

Of course, Superman wears more clothing than Supergirl, his stories don't feature excuse after excuse to show him naked, the artists don't linger on his bulging muscles...Evan, you make a great point that's been largely overlooked by the posters defending the treatment of female characters as exagerated sex objects. Although both the male and female characters appear to be "idealized", they are idealized in contradictory ways. The male characters, which are powerful superheroes frequently engaged in physical combat, are idealized as attractive, muscular, powerful individuals suited for physical combat. On the other hand, the female characters, also powerful superheroes frequently engaged in physical combat, are generally shown as inflatable porn sluts dressed in dental floss who couldn't overpower a cub scout.

But more importantly, if the arguement for the portrayal of the women is that they are simply meant to sell books by being visually attractive (like the men), then why is the story telling and panel composition different as well? One poster mentioned the close up of She Hulk's ass in Civil War. If the purpose of that shot was A) to tell the story, or B) to emphasize a character's physical attractiveness, then why was it She Hulk and not Captain America? Doesn't he have a good butt? If not his butt, then how about a gratuitous close up of his biceps, his jaw or some other appropriate male physical attribute? The answer is that there is a double standard, not just in the appearance of the female characters but in the way they are used in the stories, which demonstates that the problem exists at multiple levels in the industry and is interfering with the quality of the content at a fundamental level.

[GraniteCity]

You think that a female who was alienated by a "nearly-naked woman" wouldn't also be alienated by a 22-page story that contained 18 pages of people punching each other?Well, that's a problem too, and has been for a long time, which is part of the reason why comics don't sell like they used to. But it doesn't prove that the visual treatment of women in comics is valid, it just proves that comics have more problems. A good issue for another thread.You could have made the exact same type of complaints about the pulp magazines when they were around -- Doc Savage, the Shadow, Tarzan, and so many others -- Quite true. And the pulps died fifty years ago. Not exactly a great business or creative model for the 21st century. Especially since times (and attitudes toward the portrayal of women as sex objects) have changed quite a bit since then. Oviously if the comics industry wants to survive, it should learn from their mistakes, not repeat them.When was the last time a normal, monthly super-hero comic really made you think about the nature of existence or the meaning of life? Come on, give me an issue number. I'm not saying you can't get that from comics; I happen to believe you can. But that's not the purpose of a super-hero monthly, and I can't think of one off hand that did.I think you mean this sincerely, but you're setting up a false choice. If I were to agree that most superhero comics don't aspire to greatness, does that automatically justify them being utter trash? Is there no middle ground? I disagree. The superhero comic, even if imperfect and less than great, should still have certain standards, including a limit on the amount of sleaze.

And since you asked, The Spectre # 3. Justice League Unlimited # 24. Thunderbolts # 105. Also, the whole run of All-Star Superman and the rebooted Aquaman, Sword of Atlantis have been excellent, with a minimum of trashiness. Do I win something?

Although not superhero stuff, the recent Marvel Westerns have been good, too. As far as regular (but non-superhero) stuff, Fables, Usagi Yojimbo, Rockecto and Age of Bronze are always impressive. I know you asked about monthly superhero books, but these come out regularly and there's no reason that a superhero book can't be as good as they are.And "reeking of desperation" would work better if editors were asking artists to put that stuff in, when mostly it's just a case of being what and how artists enjoy drawing. There's a difference to me, between being pandered to, and an artist who is just enjoying him/herself.The difference doesn't hold much value for me. It is not the artist's job to have a good time at my expense (or your expense, of course). Their job is to work with the writer, editor and the rest of the team to produce a quality product. Sometimes that can and should mean deferring to the creative views of the rest of the team and taking the audience into consideration. If they feel above all that and simply must draw nude women all day, there are other venues for that.

If the editor is not communicating with the artist as far as what to put in and what to leave out, they are not doing their job. I must say, editors failing to do their jobs seems to be pretty common in the industry these days.Thank goodness you were never a teenager, I guess. I don't know where all this pretending super-hero comics aren't intended primarilly as escapist entertainment for young people comes from.Escapist does not have to equal sleaze.What, are you playing some kind of crazy game of devil's advocate, or something? Or are we trying to ignore sexist representations of women on TV or in movies? How about novels? Music videos?Ignoring, no. But I wouldn't defend it or justify it either. It is what it is. Which, at the moment, is irrelevant to the issue of content in comics. But, if we were to discuss it, two or more wrongs simply don't make it all right. An old saying, I know, but true.Bottom line: if this wasn't what the majority of comics' target audience wanted to see, we wouldn't be seeing it... because it wouldn't sell. It's that simple.Bottom line: If that were true, Phantom Lady(Freedom Fighters), Shanna the She-Devil, She Hulk and the rest would be selling better than X-Men. And Savage Dragon (sorry Erik, I love ya) and Red Sonja would be out selling every other indie book. If sales is the be all and end all, apparently trampy female characters and thinly disguised softcore porn are bad for sales. So now what's the excuse?

[Nobody]

All I know is that my girlfriend only wants to read comics that feature half-naked busty women beating the ____ out of others.

And Nextwave.

[diana_fan]

Judging by demographics that have been visiting the multiplex to see seriously violent, gore-filled films full of torture and blood, the best way to get teenage girls into comics would be to make comics ultra-violent, with terrifying villains who force people to saw off their own foot.

[Auburn]

Judging by demographics that have been visiting the multiplex to see seriously violent, gore-filled films full of torture and blood, the best way to get teenage girls into comics would be to make comics ultra-violent, with terrifying villains who force people to saw off their own foot.

Rorschach did that, but he was a good guy, and it was an arm if I remember correctly.

[GraniteCity]

Rorschach did that, but he was a good guy, and it was an arm if I remember correctly.Yeah, but Moore was ripping off Mad Max with that one. And in Mad Max it was a foot. Loved Rorschach, though.

[diana_fan]

If that were true, Phantom Lady(Freedom Fighters), Shanna the She-Devil, She Hulk and the rest would be selling better than X-Men. And Savage Dragon (sorry Erik, I love ya) and Red Sonja would be out selling every other indie book. If sales is the be all and end all, apparently trampy female characters and thinly disguised softcore porn are bad for sales. So now what's the excuse?

"Thinly disguised softcore porn"? What comics are these? Why am I not reading them?

And do you read SHE-HULK? If that book is sleaze, or pr0n, or features a "trampy" titular character, then I am seriously missing the memos.

In FF, Phantom Lady is drawn in a particular way to say a particular thing. The fact that people only see the breasts, ignore the character altogether, and then have the gall to say how sexist her depiction is is ... well, it's ironic and comical. But it does separate the wheat from the chaff.

That's actually descriptive of most of this discussion. People complaining about how someone appears on the surface, using that as an example of how the character is "hyper-sexualized" whether or not the character is sexual at all. In other words, let's avoid any actual discussion of the what the character is like, and just concentrate on how she looks. And this is a good approach, how?

Supergirl has a short skirt, so she must be a tramp, hyper-sexual, and a neverending hammer with which men can pound down women's rights and their status in our society. Right. Forget that Kara is about as a-sexual as any character, right now. Forget that she comes off far more sweet than trampy.

No, she has a short skirt and bared mid-riff, so let's just toss her in there with the other whores and tramps. And who are these other tramps, by the way?

[Evan Waters]

Supergirl has a short skirt, so she must be a tramp, hyper-sexual, and a neverending hammer with which men can pound down women's rights and their status in our society. Right. Forget that Kara is about as a-sexual as any character, right now.

Right, which is why she's shown naked-but-obscured in every other issue and is drawn to look like Paris Hilton.

[diana_fan]

Right, which is why she's shown naked-but-obscured in every other issue and is drawn to look like Paris Hilton.

Give me an example, NOT INCLUDING when she was under mind control, where she is AT ALL sexual. Give me an example. Just one.

Kissing Owen on the cheek? Having a crush on Nightwing? Telling Cassie that she doesn't like Themyscira because there are no boys?

Yeah, she's the Jenna Jameson of the DCU. Right.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

[Evan Waters]

Give me an example, NOT INCLUDING when she was under mind control, where she is AT ALL sexual. Give me an example. Just one.


You're confusing sexual behavior with sexualized visuals. The complaint isn't that the character's a slut, it's that the art emphasizes hawtness over strength and power. It's not for nothing that the character's sometimes referred to on scans_daily as "Supertorso."

Consider this cover image:

http://pics.livejournal.com/kphoebe/pic/00033as3

Note how while Nightwing gets an aggressive, ass-kicking pose, Supergirl is standing passively and arching herself in such a manner to show off her torso and legs (Nightwing is showing off his leg, but he at least has an "action" pose). She's shown as less aggressive and less powerful, on the cover to her own book.

[matchesmalone]

Folks,

The problem here isn't what Supergirl is doing. The problem is what Ian Churchill is doing. And Simone Bianchi. And Carlos Pacheco. And so many others. It's that undue focus on the female characters' bodies interferes with the telling of stories, and reinforces the idea that women are sex objects.

[matchesmalone]

You're confusing sexual behavior with sexualized visuals. The complaint isn't that the character's a slut, it's that the art emphasizes hawtness over strength and power. It's not for nothing that the character's sometimes referred to on scans_daily as "Supertorso."

Consider this cover image:

http://pics.livejournal.com/kphoebe/pic/00033as3

Note how while Nightwing gets an aggressive, ass-kicking pose, Supergirl is standing passively and arching herself in such a manner to show off her torso and legs (Nightwing is showing off his leg, but he at least has an "action" pose). She's shown as less aggressive and less powerful, on the cover to her own book.

... and she's just kind of staring into space with a worried look on her face, and if there's a tiny bit more wind her underwear will be visible, whereas Nightwing's face shows he's engaged in action. Also, notice that his leg obscures our view of his crotch. I bet if the figures were reversed, Churchill would draw her other leg forward so we'd have a view of her crotch.

[diana_fan]

You're confusing sexual behavior with sexualized visuals. The complaint isn't that the character's a slut, it's that the art emphasizes hawtness over strength and power. It's not for nothing that the character's sometimes referred to on scans_daily as "Supertorso."[QUOTE]

No, you are the one who is confused.

You want to judge all the female character on the basis of how they look on the surface, with no regard for what they actually do, say, accomplish.

"Character X has big boobs, so her character is just sexism!"

"Character Y has a short skirt, so DC thinks all women are sluts!"

[QUOTE]
Note how while Nightwing gets an aggressive, ass-kicking pose, Supergirl is standing passively and arching herself in such a manner to show off her torso and legs (Nightwing is showing off his leg, but he at least has an "action" pose). She's shown as less aggressive and less powerful, on the cover to her own book.

Did you LOOK at the cover? Supergirl is not standing. She is FLYING. Like, through, the air? Dick is swinging on a line. Since, you know, he CAN'T FLY.

And obviously, they want to play up Dick's appearance in the book, since Nightwing is a very popular character (despite the state of his own book at present).

If you want to see that as sexist, misogynist, or whatever else you think it is, I can't stop you. You know what they say about books, covers, and judgements.

[Zechs]

if he was dead, Mel Brooks would be rolling over in his grave at the mere suggestion that something he wrote was "classy and sophisticated"...:rolleyes: :D


You mean Young Frankenstein isn't that? ____!!!!! *snaps finger*

Honestly they should just give Cassandra Cain a series again. God those where the days. Every three issues she took a shower, smacking Superboy for having a wandering eye, one punch cat fights with Steph Brown, teased poor Tim by wearing Babs' Batgirl costume. Gosh those where the days.. I think I'll read em again of the happier times.. and just continue ignoring what's going on until someone writes her better. :D

[Evan Waters]

No, you are the one who is confused.

You want to judge all the female character on the basis of how they look on the surface, with no regard for what they actually do, say, accomplish.

I'm not judging the characters.

I'm judging the ART.

[Babieboy1981]

I've been disappointed by how far DC has pushed gratuitous cheesecake lately.

Daniel Acuna's interpretation of Phantom Lady, with giant, shiny breasts, is gross, not sexy.

In Action Comics, Carlos Pacheco has been showing Lois Lane in skimpy underwear for no apparent reason.

This week's Detective Comics cover by Simone Bianchi shows Poison Ivy wearing an amount of clothes that wouldn't pass at a strip club - too revealing. And the Clooneyesque Batman just seems to be (mentally) drooling over her.

DC has typically been a bit classier than this. Very disappointing.

Um, welcome to comic books.

When you complain like that, you sound like a gay.

[Evan Waters]

Um, welcome to comic books.

When you complain like that, you sound like a gay.

Thanks for reinforcing his point.

[diana_fan]

I'm not judging the characters.

I'm judging the ART.

But if you are separating the depiction of the character from the character altogether, then what is your argument, actually?

Is Quitely's ASSM #1 cover saying that super-heroes verging on middle age are fat, proud of themsevles to the point of hubris, and relatively lazy, sitting around doing nothing?

Kara is, at this point, a little worried and unsure of her identity. It makes sense that, here in her character arc, she isn't depicted as, say, standing over Darkseid's bloody body, holding Granny by the throat.

I guess I am not sure what you are arguing.

[matchesmalone]

Um, welcome to comic books.

When you complain like that, you sound like a gay.

I should have named this thread "Hey Homophobes! Meet Here!"

Only homophobic people, who might or might not have unresolved conflicts about their own sexual orientation, make comments like that. And there are plenty such folk in this forum.

PS - If you want to continue to assert your manly heterosexuality, you might not want "Babieboy" as part of your username.

[SouthtownKid]

Several other posters have made this general argument, that this is what it takes to sell comics and that's that. I would suggest that it's possible that just the opposite is true.I'm not saying that at all. In fact, if I list my favorite comics, they usually don't rely on that much, if at all. I'm just saying there is an audience for it.

I'm also recognizing that I am not the primary target audience of super-hero comics, as far as age group goes. I'm not imagining that I personally am the center of the universe, and that everything should be made to perfectly cater to me. I can remember what it was like to be 12.

[Babieboy1981]

I should have named this thread "Hey Homophobes! Meet Here!"

Only homophobic people, who might or might not have unresolved conflicts about their own sexual orientation, make comments like that. And there are plenty such folk in this forum.

PS - If you want to continue to assert your manly heterosexuality, you might not want "Babieboy" as part of your username.

It's a line from a movie, it was a joke, relax a little. Oh, and to continue to "assert my manly heterosexuality" I would have had to start.

[sgt.marvel]

... and she's just kind of staring into space with a worried look on her face, and if there's a tiny bit more wind her underwear will be visible, whereas Nightwing's face shows he's engaged in action. Also, notice that his leg obscures our view of his crotch. I bet if the figures were reversed, Churchill would draw her other leg forward so we'd have a view of her crotch.

Yeah....there have been thousands of panels where you could see a guys crotch. And there won't be more wind because this is a drawing.

[matchesmalone]

Yeah....there have been thousands of panels where you could see a guys crotch. And there won't be more wind because this is a drawing.

You're reaaallly grasping and I imagine you know it.

[matchesmalone]

It's a line from a movie, it was a joke, relax a little. Oh, and to continue to "assert my manly heterosexuality" I would have had to start.

A homophobic joke from a movie is still a homophobic joke, found amusing by homophobes. And no, I won't "relax" when homophobia is manifested. I will, however, point out that very many homophobic men are gay and don't know it. Give it some thought.

[Babieboy1981]

A homophobic joke from a movie is still a homophobic joke, found amusing by homophobes. And no, I won't "relax" when homophobia is manifested. I will, however, point out that very many homophobic men are gay and