comment

El Cid at 7:15AM, Sept. 14, 2014

Regarding your second post, again I'm not sure what you're getting at because you haven't come out and said it. Are you saying that professional artists have some requirement to cater to your preference on how they "should" depict female characters? They don't. They cater to their readers, to the people who patronize their art. If what the readers wanted was "coiled," aggressive, non-sexualized women, that's what they'd be getting. It's easy to tell people what they "should" be doing when it costs you nothing to complain, but when you're trying to keep a company afloat it's a different matter. Don't blame Marvel for giving readers what they respond to. When people stop responding to this kind of thing, publishers will stop putting it on covers. Of course, that will never happen, not in comics, not in magazines, not in anything. People are what they are, not what you want them to be, and they like what they like, not what you want them to like.

El Cid at 7:12AM, Sept. 14, 2014

Re Irrevenant: I didn't misread the question; I ignored it. I don't have time to respond to everything people say to me, and it seemed like Hippie was actually making statements by way of asking questions, and I was happy to leave it at that. Since you've brought it back up, I'll respond directly to you: I don't know what you mean by "on the hook." I don't believe that actually means anything. People can and will go out of their way to be offended by anything if it suits them, and how much an artist caters to that concern is their own prerogative. If *you* want to read a bunch of negative things into any given work of art, whether it's Manara or Da Vinci, that's on you. I don't see that it puts any onus whatsoever upon the artist beyond what they themselves choose to address.

KimLuster at 6:52AM, Sept. 14, 2014

I dunno... To me Spider-Woman looks like she's 'on the prowl' and not deliberately trying to be sexy - that she is sexy is just a byproduct of her innate sensuality (and I do think the artist was fully aware of this when crafting the pose). The similarity with Amazing SpiderMan #30 is more problematic... I hate to fall back to biology, but I think there is a good general consensus that females butts and boobs are more prone to turn on the male sex-switches than vice-versa. And I don't think this is cultural - it is biological, rooted in our genes (just like many female apes' rear ends swell and turn red when they're 'ready', but males don't). So, while it may not be 'fair', a female rear jutting out is simply more likely to be considered sexual than a male rear. This is a lot more complicated than it should be haha...

irrevenant at 6:39AM, Sept. 14, 2014

It's interesting comparing to that ASM #30 cover. The first thing that leaps out at me is that the poses are different despite being so very similar because Spiderman looks like he's coiled, ready to pounce where Spiderwoman just looks sort of slinky and wiggly. The Carlo Pagulayan post that HippieVan linked below has a pair of pictures at the bottom that illustrate sexy pose vs active, dynamic pose. Aaaand, I've just realised that that's part of what bothers me about all the cheesecake poses - they make the female characters look less dynamic and more passive. And in this day and age we really don't need our female heroes to be passive.

irrevenant at 6:29AM, Sept. 14, 2014

@El Cid, I suspect you misread Hippyvan's question about intention. As I read it (s)he was asking: Is the intention the only thing that matters? It's a fairly safe bet that Marvel didn't *deliberately* go out of their way to offend their readers. So if they inadvertently offended a lot of people, does the lack of intention automatically get them off the hook? (HippieVan, please chip in if I've inadvertently misrepresented you).

KimLuster at 6:18AM, Sept. 14, 2014

lol I googled Amazing Spider Man #30 - El Cid is right about the hypocrisy in this instance!!! Spider-Man's butt gap is right there!!

El Cid at 5:55AM, Sept. 14, 2014

Well, FC was throwing some pretty harsh accusations at Marvel, and to me it looked more like this was all coming from inside of FC's head and did not originate with the image at all. You can't blame other people for the negative baggage you bring along with you. I'm pretty sure I did a poor job of expressing what I was trying to say there (maybe here, too), so the fault is mine.

KimLuster at 5:47AM, Sept. 14, 2014

@El Cid: I felt that FC's post was totally related to context (eroticism in non-adult comics) and it seems you were suggesting (towards him) that anyone who think it's 'demeaning' might have some 'personal issues'. I misread things all the time so if that's NOT what you were saying (or you were not directing it to FC), then my apologies. I agree you didn't explicitly mention him so maybe I misunderstood, but the placement and wording of the posts just made it seem so, so it's very possible possible I added in what wasn't there. In any case, I can emphatically say FC does not consider such imagery demeaning towards females (see his comic Rimjob if you haven't already). Cheers!

El Cid at 5:46AM, Sept. 14, 2014

Also, here's a Youtube video that sums up my thoughts much better than I could in this space. It even goes so far as to superimpose Spiderman over the Spiderwoman cover: http://youtu.be/CB6TiRJNI-Q

El Cid at 5:45AM, Sept. 14, 2014

@HippieVan: Unfortunately, "personal issues" are at the heart of it. If there's a nicer way to put it, let me know, but I believe some people are projecting their own personal insecurities and unhealthy ideas about sex onto a perfectly harmless pinup image. Also, just for fun, you should check out the cover of Amazing Spider Man #30, which features Spiderman in EXACTLY the same pose. I mean EXACTLY. Yet it didn't generate anything near the shitstorm that this (variant) cover generated. Now, why do you think that is? What were Marvel's hidden intentions when they came up with that cover? Maybe there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with the cover, and a bunch of insecure prudes are showering it with their own invented negativity and howling phony outrage? I guess it's clear where I stand on that.

irrevenant at 10:31PM, Sept. 13, 2014

Speaking of that blog, I just came across one that gave the perfect (exaggerated) example of what I meant by "reaching the point where it distracts from the comic": http://lesstitsnass.tumblr.com/post/25289610908/eschergirls-2-5-9-submitted-have-the-newest I can check more thoroughly when I have access to my PC and graphics software, but that second 3D model looks spot on to me. The pose is still questionable on its practicality for clambering up a rooftop, though (as the blog points out, that dangling leg is kind of weird, but there might be a hidden foothold, I guess...)

HippieVan at 9:15PM, Sept. 13, 2014

@irrevenant: You're probably right about the 3D model! I think it still makes its point well, though, that the anatomy is pretty ridiculous. The other blog I linked to in the post features another example of a 3D model of the pose, which is slightly more realistic but doesn't seem to match the image exactly: http://lesstitsnass.tumblr.com/post/96391507467/carlo-pagulayan-did-these-to-illustrate-what-the

HippieVan at 9:12PM, Sept. 13, 2014

@El Cid: I think there's an interesting argument to be had here about intention. I think you're probably right that Marvel isn't trying to make any statement about women's place in society, but might they be doing so anyways? Does responsibility always rest entirely in our intentions? (P.S. I think the "personal issues" comment was a little bit uncalled for. Let's try to stay away from any personal comments in our arguments, please! :P )

HippieVan at 9:07PM, Sept. 13, 2014

I love all the debate going on here, guys!

irrevenant at 9:06PM, Sept. 13, 2014

I suspect this sort of thing does alienate potential female viewers (which is 51% of the potential audience so... good job, guys) but for me personally it becomes an issue at the point where it distracts from the comic. That applies to improbably distorted anatomy, ludicrously inappropriate posing and distorted characterisation. I can forgive a lot as part of genre conventions but there's a limit. And we're becoming increasingly aware of how implausible some of this stuff is so it's becoming easier to break that suspension of disbelief by, say, drawing a superheroine in a position where you can see her breasts AND her posterior.

irrevenant at 8:23PM, Sept. 13, 2014

As an aside, I don't trust that 3D model of the picture. For example, her right arm is parallel to the torso or lower in the picture but bent back in the model. And if anything the neck in the photo is too LONG not pushed back into her body like that.

irrevenant at 8:17PM, Sept. 13, 2014

Superheroics is always going to be a kind of ludicrous genre full of brightly-coloured revealing costumes and dramatic poses. And that's not at all a bad thing. :) But it reaches a point where it feels like we're being patronised and manipulated. Like they feel we'll get bored and wander off if they don't shove cheesecake in our face at regular intervals. Guys, your primary audience hasn't been adolescent boys for a loooong time, and your *potential* audience is even larger and more diverse.

El Cid at 8:01PM, Sept. 13, 2014

Please don't take posts out of context, KimLuster. I did not say that there is anything "personally wrong" with people who get offended by sexual imagery in inappropriate venues; I said that if someone considers our natural human interest in sexual imagery to be demeaning (or "oppressive"), then that person might have some not-so-healthy personal issues they need to work out. As for the rest of what you said (which really didn't need to be addressed to me at all), you've pretty much summed it up yourself: It's not an inappropriate image for a comic book cover. There's nothing explicitly sexual about it. It's obviously not geared toward very young kids anyway.

KimLuster at 7:40PM, Sept. 13, 2014

Hmmm... El Cid, I'm not so much thinking about the 'demeaning' aspect as I am the appropriateness. It's very true we are drawn to erotic imagery, but there's nothing personally 'wrong' with any of us if we get offended if we feel the erotic stuff is being presented in the wrong context. There's is a line, and don't ask me to tell you exactly where it is - it's impossible to pin down, and some of us have different thresholds of where it is. But most of us would agree that an image like this doesn't belong in, say, a 3rd-grader's textbook, or a child's coloring book. I think most people are accepting of erotica in the proper context - some just question whether it belongs in a monthly periodicals purchased by a large number of pre-pubescent teens. It is a parent's duty to screen things they don't want their kids to see. I'm personally okay if my child sees this image, but when is it not okay? What if Spider-Woman was totally nude here? When is the 'adult only' stamp needed?

SLK8ne at 7:23PM, Sept. 13, 2014

It's all subliminal.

SLK8ne at 7:21PM, Sept. 13, 2014

I say male models on the sexual enhancement because the SO's are the harder of the two to sell on it sometimes and often control the purse strings necessary to buy the drug.

SLK8ne at 7:14PM, Sept. 13, 2014

Actually what bothers me is her broken neck. I get that Spiderwoman would be more flexible than normal females, but, that pose is impossible. As far as the sexual exploitation aspect. Both male and female superheroes are sexually exploited in different ways. Costumes on all superheroes (except semi-realistic ones like Rorschach) look like their costume is painted on. Does anyone think that all those six packs and bulging pectorals are an accident? They're no accident any more than the fact that all these "sexual enhancement" commercials have male models that look like what Hollywood thinks is sexy to females. It's all aimed at making the sale. Same thing here. And I don't think this controversy is accidental either. I didn't even know Spiderwoman was being relaunched until this erupted. It's kind of like the death of Robin(s) or the death Superman. Its all about selling the product.There is an old entertainment saying, there is no bad publicity.

El Cid at 6:47PM, Sept. 13, 2014

There are people who see faces in rocks on Mars, and there are people who see Jesus burned into tortilla shells. I think you're reading into this a lot that isn't there. Marvel is not trying to make some kind of statement, overt or covert, about how women are to be valued in society. They're just trying to attract attention to their books, and I'd say they were successful at it, which is all the defense it requires. If *YOU* interpret from this image that women are just objects of titillation not to be taken seriously, that probably says a lot more about you than about the people who created it. You're projecting your own negative baggage onto a harmless piece of pinup art, and these "symbolic implications" are your own invention, plain and simple. At worst, you could say it tells us something we've already known for ages: that sex sells. People are drawn to erotic imagery. If you find that demeaning, then you may have some personal issues (I'm being serious, not trying to sound glib).

fallopiancrusader at 5:14PM, Sept. 13, 2014

I think Marvel could avoid any further confusion by simply spinning off a new imprint that unabashedly publishes explicit superhero-porn. What we are left with instead is the image above, which is far more disturbing. To me, the most fundamental concern is that the editors at Marvel have chosen to hire a master of erotic art to portray a crime-fighting vigilante. In so doing, they are broadcasting the message that I should be viewing Spider Woman first as an object of sexual titillation, and only secondarily as a crime-fighting vigilante; and that it is appropriate for Spiderwoman to be cast in this role, by virtue of her female-ness. That's the equivalent of hiring Larry Flynt to film a documentary on Elizabeth Cady-Stanton. To me, the symbolic implications of this are not trivial. As jamoecw has correctly pointed out, this phenomenon is hardly limited to comic books.

jamoecw at 9:58AM, Sept. 13, 2014

typically some profeminist spokesperson will say something is 'overly' sexualized. then guys will check it out to see if it is true. young teens looking for their sexual identity will take notice, and turn to the image to try and figure out how to get boys to look at them in a sexual manner. the guys generally decide that they can get more from other places, and the girls end up incorporating that image into what they are supposed to be like. therefore the claim that such images oppress women are in fact self prophesize. the claim of something being overly sexual causes more to oppress women than the image alone ever could. sure if no images were ever made like this then the claim wouldn't ever have been made, and thus avoiding any oppression, but that is a dead end argument (where does it stop?). i guess you have to ask yourself: are women so fragile that they can't handle the same level of sexualized images of their gender that guys can? or is there more to this issue?