Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:36 AM
Liberal_in_LA (44,397 posts)
Marvel features spider woman's ass on cover of issue #1
Http://io9.com/check-out-spider-woman-1-starring-spider-womans-ass-1624535918
First of all, even the dumbest, horniest teenage boy on the planet knows there's no fabric on this earth that could possibly cling to Jessica Drew's individual buttocks like that. She looks like she's wearing body-paint, and that's a big no-no for an industry still trying to remember that women exist and may perhaps read comics and also don't want to feel completely gross when they do so. As for the position she's in... christ. It's like you want The Hawkeye Initiative to get so furious they have brain aneurysms and die. Of course, sexy comic art has its place, and Manara is quite good at it. But perhaps asking an erotic artist to draw one of your most popular superheroines for a mass-market cover wasn't quite a good idea. Also a bad idea: Receiving this cover and pretending like you didn't notice Spider-Woman sticking her bare red ass three feet into the air. Here's a simple rule: If it's inappropriate for a male character, it should also be inappropriate for a female character. ![]()
|
377 replies, 62429 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Liberal_in_LA | Aug 2014 | OP |
Heidi | Aug 2014 | #1 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #2 | |
In_The_Wind | Aug 2014 | #14 | |
Agschmid | Aug 2014 | #60 | |
In_The_Wind | Aug 2014 | #66 | |
Agschmid | Aug 2014 | #71 | |
underpants | Aug 2014 | #26 | |
notadmblnd | Aug 2014 | #29 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #199 | |
Agschmid | Aug 2014 | #59 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #104 | |
pintobean | Aug 2014 | #110 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #113 | |
yeoman6987 | Aug 2014 | #126 | |
pintobean | Aug 2014 | #128 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #131 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #138 | |
pintobean | Aug 2014 | #141 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #150 | |
pintobean | Aug 2014 | #153 | |
betsuni | Aug 2014 | #152 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #183 | |
pinboy3niner | Aug 2014 | #216 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #218 | |
rjj621 | Aug 2014 | #336 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #339 | |
Exultant Democracy | Aug 2014 | #343 | |
BainsBane | Aug 2014 | #3 | |
pintobean | Aug 2014 | #15 | |
randome | Aug 2014 | #25 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #49 | |
Liberal Veteran | Aug 2014 | #68 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #74 | |
SwankyXomb | Aug 2014 | #111 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #177 | |
tblue37 | Aug 2014 | #187 | |
BainsBane | Aug 2014 | #213 | |
BainsBane | Aug 2014 | #212 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #258 | |
sibelian | Aug 2014 | #331 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #337 | |
ancianita | Aug 2014 | #155 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #200 | |
Prophet 451 | Aug 2014 | #4 | |
Erich Bloodaxe BSN | Aug 2014 | #32 | |
Prophet 451 | Aug 2014 | #77 | |
Erich Bloodaxe BSN | Aug 2014 | #79 | |
Prophet 451 | Aug 2014 | #259 | |
Xyzse | Aug 2014 | #268 | |
Prophet 451 | Aug 2014 | #273 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #80 | |
TreasonousBastard | Aug 2014 | #5 | |
whathehell | Aug 2014 | #7 | |
cemaphonic | Aug 2014 | #72 | |
4b5f940728b232b034e4 | Aug 2014 | #105 | |
whathehell | Aug 2014 | #115 | |
4b5f940728b232b034e4 | Aug 2014 | #134 | |
mimi85 | Aug 2014 | #202 | |
RKP5637 | Aug 2014 | #226 | |
Blue_In_AK | Aug 2014 | #286 | |
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin | Aug 2014 | #253 | |
edhopper | Aug 2014 | #117 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #118 | |
cwydro | Aug 2014 | #122 | |
BainsBane | Aug 2014 | #205 | |
cwydro | Aug 2014 | #262 | |
tazkcmo | Aug 2014 | #130 | |
JVS | Aug 2014 | #263 | |
Blue_In_AK | Aug 2014 | #284 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #119 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #19 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #82 | |
Luminous Animal | Aug 2014 | #106 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #108 | |
Luminous Animal | Aug 2014 | #112 | |
alphafemale | Aug 2014 | #85 | |
Shrike47 | Aug 2014 | #6 | |
Reter | Aug 2014 | #165 | |
TlalocW | Aug 2014 | #8 | |
Blue_Tires | Aug 2014 | #176 | |
TlalocW | Aug 2014 | #191 | |
littlemissmartypants | Aug 2014 | #9 | |
wyldwolf | Aug 2014 | #10 | |
PragmaticLiberal | Aug 2014 | #83 | |
wyldwolf | Aug 2014 | #87 | |
PragmaticLiberal | Aug 2014 | #154 | |
jollyreaper2112 | Aug 2014 | #338 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #98 | |
reddread | Aug 2014 | #11 | |
tridim | Aug 2014 | #12 | |
Johonny | Aug 2014 | #28 | |
WinkyDink | Aug 2014 | #143 | |
Blue_Adept | Aug 2014 | #13 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #50 | |
Blue_Adept | Aug 2014 | #107 | |
Post removed | Aug 2014 | #16 | |
pintobean | Aug 2014 | #18 | |
LloydS of New London | Aug 2014 | #21 | |
ProdigalJunkMail | Aug 2014 | #35 | |
pintobean | Aug 2014 | #43 | |
Agschmid | Aug 2014 | #61 | |
Ilsa | Aug 2014 | #186 | |
pintobean | Aug 2014 | #188 | |
pintobean | Aug 2014 | #124 | |
MadrasT | Aug 2014 | #22 | |
In_The_Wind | Aug 2014 | #23 | |
Erich Bloodaxe BSN | Aug 2014 | #33 | |
gollygee | Aug 2014 | #40 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #44 | |
Erich Bloodaxe BSN | Aug 2014 | #69 | |
stevenleser | Aug 2014 | #193 | |
Iron Man | Aug 2014 | #37 | |
msanthrope | Aug 2014 | #41 | |
In_The_Wind | Aug 2014 | #47 | |
msanthrope | Aug 2014 | #48 | |
In_The_Wind | Aug 2014 | #53 | |
alphafemale | Aug 2014 | #229 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #58 | |
NV Whino | Aug 2014 | #17 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #20 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #56 | |
Cleita | Aug 2014 | #76 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #81 | |
Cleita | Aug 2014 | #86 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #88 | |
Cleita | Aug 2014 | #90 | |
Name removed | Aug 2014 | #91 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #99 | |
zazen | Aug 2014 | #129 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #145 | |
sibelian | Aug 2014 | #334 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #340 | |
opiate69 | Aug 2014 | #346 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #355 | |
ancianita | Aug 2014 | #164 | |
LanternWaste | Aug 2014 | #275 | |
Logical | Aug 2014 | #149 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #151 | |
pintobean | Aug 2014 | #166 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #181 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #221 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #195 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #255 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #211 | |
sibelian | Aug 2014 | #222 | |
Marr | Aug 2014 | #24 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #78 | |
underpants | Aug 2014 | #27 | |
deathrind | Aug 2014 | #30 | |
aikoaiko | Aug 2014 | #31 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #34 | |
aikoaiko | Aug 2014 | #39 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #42 | |
aikoaiko | Aug 2014 | #46 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #276 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #280 | |
Puglover | Aug 2014 | #347 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #65 | |
LittleBlue | Aug 2014 | #45 | |
Nye Bevan | Aug 2014 | #55 | |
msanthrope | Aug 2014 | #67 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #116 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #62 | |
Nuclear Unicorn | Aug 2014 | #103 | |
stevenleser | Aug 2014 | #175 | |
PoutrageFatigue | Aug 2014 | #179 | |
Rhinodawg | Aug 2014 | #36 | |
Iron Man | Aug 2014 | #38 | |
stevenleser | Aug 2014 | #120 | |
WinkyDink | Aug 2014 | #144 | |
Orrex | Aug 2014 | #159 | |
stevenleser | Aug 2014 | #171 | |
CAG | Aug 2014 | #51 | |
brewens | Aug 2014 | #52 | |
Nye Bevan | Aug 2014 | #54 | |
99Forever | Aug 2014 | #57 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #63 | |
Nye Bevan | Aug 2014 | #70 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #75 | |
Iron Man | Aug 2014 | #100 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #234 | |
99Forever | Aug 2014 | #239 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #240 | |
99Forever | Aug 2014 | #241 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #242 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #245 | |
99Forever | Aug 2014 | #252 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #260 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #264 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #270 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #271 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #272 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #279 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #295 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #297 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #298 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #281 | |
Blue_Adept | Aug 2014 | #283 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #285 | |
Blue_Adept | Aug 2014 | #287 | |
sibelian | Aug 2014 | #325 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #348 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #369 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #370 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #371 | |
Blue_Adept | Aug 2014 | #244 | |
lunatica | Aug 2014 | #64 | |
busterbrown | Aug 2014 | #157 | |
lunatica | Aug 2014 | #236 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #235 | |
tkmorris | Aug 2014 | #289 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #291 | |
opiate69 | Aug 2014 | #292 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #349 | |
Blue_Adept | Aug 2014 | #350 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #352 | |
opiate69 | Aug 2014 | #353 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #356 | |
opiate69 | Aug 2014 | #357 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #358 | |
opiate69 | Aug 2014 | #360 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #359 | |
Blue_Adept | Aug 2014 | #293 | |
alp227 | Aug 2014 | #351 | |
opiate69 | Aug 2014 | #354 | |
Iron Man | Aug 2014 | #238 | |
lunatica | Aug 2014 | #243 | |
SomethingFishy | Aug 2014 | #73 | |
Nye Bevan | Aug 2014 | #97 | |
RandySF | Aug 2014 | #84 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #89 | |
Name removed | Aug 2014 | #92 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #93 | |
Nye Bevan | Aug 2014 | #94 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #121 | |
Name removed | Aug 2014 | #95 | |
zazen | Aug 2014 | #135 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #139 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #197 | |
Nye Bevan | Aug 2014 | #156 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #207 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #194 | |
freshwest | Aug 2014 | #367 | |
alphafemale | Aug 2014 | #137 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #140 | |
pintobean | Aug 2014 | #142 | |
alphafemale | Aug 2014 | #146 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #147 | |
ancianita | Aug 2014 | #161 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #163 | |
ancianita | Aug 2014 | #167 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #169 | |
ancianita | Aug 2014 | #172 | |
alphafemale | Aug 2014 | #185 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #189 | |
BainsBane | Aug 2014 | #215 | |
alphafemale | Aug 2014 | #220 | |
Marr | Aug 2014 | #362 | |
BainsBane | Aug 2014 | #364 | |
Marr | Aug 2014 | #365 | |
alphafemale | Aug 2014 | #219 | |
BainsBane | Aug 2014 | #214 | |
alphafemale | Aug 2014 | #225 | |
BainsBane | Aug 2014 | #246 | |
alphafemale | Aug 2014 | #254 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #317 | |
alphafemale | Aug 2014 | #366 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #368 | |
Eleanors38 | Aug 2014 | #96 | |
orpupilofnature57 | Aug 2014 | #101 | |
Comrade Grumpy | Aug 2014 | #102 | |
stevenleser | Aug 2014 | #109 | |
conservaphobe | Aug 2014 | #114 | |
whistler162 | Aug 2014 | #123 | |
PeteSelman | Aug 2014 | #125 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #203 | |
jberryhill | Aug 2014 | #127 | |
Orrex | Aug 2014 | #132 | |
Iron Man | Aug 2014 | #133 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #136 | |
tabasco | Aug 2014 | #158 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #201 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #204 | |
ancianita | Aug 2014 | #168 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #170 | |
ancianita | Aug 2014 | #173 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #208 | |
Iron Man | Aug 2014 | #210 | |
stevenleser | Aug 2014 | #227 | |
Iron Man | Aug 2014 | #228 | |
stevenleser | Aug 2014 | #231 | |
LittleBlue | Aug 2014 | #261 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #265 | |
stevenleser | Aug 2014 | #266 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #267 | |
Initech | Aug 2014 | #148 | |
pintobean | Aug 2014 | #160 | |
immoderate | Aug 2014 | #162 | |
Gothmog | Aug 2014 | #174 | |
Rye Bread Pizza | Aug 2014 | #178 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #180 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #184 | |
hunter | Aug 2014 | #190 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #206 | |
Violet_Crumble | Aug 2014 | #224 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #233 | |
Iron Man | Aug 2014 | #209 | |
Hosnon | Aug 2014 | #230 | |
TheKentuckian | Aug 2014 | #248 | |
alphafemale | Aug 2014 | #250 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #290 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #269 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #282 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #299 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #302 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #303 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #304 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #305 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #306 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #307 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #308 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #312 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #314 | |
Blue_Adept | Aug 2014 | #313 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #316 | |
Blue_Adept | Aug 2014 | #319 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #321 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #323 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #328 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #332 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #333 | |
Blue_Adept | Aug 2014 | #342 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #318 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #327 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #309 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #310 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #320 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #322 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #326 | |
Blue_Adept | Aug 2014 | #324 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #329 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #330 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #182 | |
jberryhill | Aug 2014 | #192 | |
OilemFirchen | Aug 2014 | #196 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #198 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #217 | |
Kaleva | Aug 2014 | #223 | |
edhopper | Aug 2014 | #232 | |
War Horse | Aug 2014 | #237 | |
Owl | Aug 2014 | #247 | |
TheKentuckian | Aug 2014 | #249 | |
Liberal_in_LA | Aug 2014 | #257 | |
egduj | Aug 2014 | #251 | |
reflection | Aug 2014 | #341 | |
itsrobert | Aug 2014 | #256 | |
JCMach1 | Aug 2014 | #274 | |
Atman | Aug 2014 | #277 | |
lumberjack_jeff | Aug 2014 | #278 | |
GOLGO 13 | Aug 2014 | #288 | |
Prisoner_Number_Six | Aug 2014 | #294 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #311 | |
retread | Aug 2014 | #296 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #315 | |
Blue_Adept | Aug 2014 | #300 | |
samsingh | Aug 2014 | #301 | |
HooptieWagon | Aug 2014 | #335 | |
Exultant Democracy | Aug 2014 | #344 | |
hifiguy | Aug 2014 | #345 | |
justiceischeap | Aug 2014 | #363 | |
Warren DeMontague | Aug 2014 | #372 | |
yuiyoshida | Aug 2014 | #361 | |
Nye Bevan | Aug 2014 | #373 | |
Blue_Adept | Oct 2014 | #374 | |
Liberal_in_LA | Oct 2014 | #375 | |
Blue_Adept | Oct 2014 | #376 | |
AngryAmish | Jun 2016 | #377 |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:50 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
2. It worked for Nicki Minaj.
...what?
|
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #2)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:12 AM
In_The_Wind (72,300 posts)
14. Indeed!
Does she do any videos wearing more clothes? After watching part of Anaconda yesterday, I went looking for her videos
![]() |
Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #14)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:19 PM
Agschmid (28,749 posts)
60. Essentially no.
There is one with Sean Garret called "Massive Attack" it is from back in the day and it probably shows her the most covered up...
That isn't saying much. |
Response to Agschmid (Reply #60)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:48 PM
In_The_Wind (72,300 posts)
66. After watching Massive Attack (she has a thing for bugs), I found this one ...
Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #66)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:57 PM
Agschmid (28,749 posts)
71. Oh Drake...
Those eyebrows though...
|
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #2)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:49 AM
underpants (175,279 posts)
26. Not being an artistic type I am not sure of the essence of Nicki's latest video
There is some message, dare I say "vision", that she has endeavored to express in her latest contribution but it is being my ability to truly understand it minutia.
|
Response to underpants (Reply #26)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:54 AM
notadmblnd (23,720 posts)
29. I think it's clear, she's in love with her ass
Who loves Nikki Manaj's ass more than Nikki Manaj? Why, no one!
|
Response to notadmblnd (Reply #29)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 12:53 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
199. She owns it, which is cool.
She's not worried about it going down on her perrrrramanent record that she promoted illicit naughty butt twerking or grinding or whatever.
If the Butt-luminati do establish their one world butt order and crack down on all dissenting buttpinions, along with all bad butt videos and their producers, Nicki Minaj will be right there saying fuck you, I did what I did, and I'm glad about it. I have no regrets, except that I have but one butt to give, for my butt. In that, she is an inspiration to us all. |
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #2)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:18 PM
Agschmid (28,749 posts)
59. I LOLed.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #2)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 04:56 PM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
104. 0-7.
...yowch.
It worked for Nicki Minaj.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5431879 REASON FOR ALERT This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. ALERTER'S COMMENTS Making a joke out of misogyny and objectification. It's such a standard part of his posting history that I wonder if this kind of spitting in the face of feminists is actually appreciated by some people here. Nicki is a musician and has at least some say in what she does in her videos, and many of those videos are about sex. This is about a drawing of a superhero that is approved by a publisher and the comic book isn't actually about sex. This constant making fun of feminist issues is hostile. it creates a hostile environment for feminists. You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:01 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT. Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: Seriously? What kind of alert was this? Don't waste our time. Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: Loosen up a bit, folks Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: Lighten up. Francis. Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: Are we so politically correct.. Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: Nicki Minaj uses sex to increase her wealth, just like Marvel Comics uses cover art that is blatantly sexist to make money. As a feminist, I can't logically find a way to excuse Minaj for sexualizing her body while criticizing Marvel for doing the same thing. Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: Are you kidding? I want to see some Spider woman ass! Going to thread now. |
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #104)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:38 PM
pintobean (18,101 posts)
110. That's hilarious. /nt
Response to pintobean (Reply #110)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:55 PM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
113. Way funnier than my original post, that's for sure.
![]() |
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #104)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:48 PM
yeoman6987 (14,449 posts)
126. I wish we knew who the alerter was.........
I am stunned that whoever it was alerted this.
|
Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #126)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:57 PM
pintobean (18,101 posts)
128. I think I can guess
the alerter's favorite group. I wonder how many feminists were on the jury.
|
Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #126)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:02 PM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
131. I'm pretty sure I know.
I won't say, but I know.
|
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #131)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:22 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
138. It is blatantly obvious from the
paranoia of the prose style alone. Someone needs to get a life.
|
Response to hifiguy (Reply #138)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:25 PM
pintobean (18,101 posts)
141. Get something
anyway.
|
Response to pintobean (Reply #141)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:42 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
150. Don't be a coward, spit it out.
Response to redqueen (Reply #150)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:51 PM
pintobean (18,101 posts)
153. Can you alert
or do you expect someone else to?
|
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #104)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:46 PM
betsuni (22,169 posts)
152. The alerter isn't aware that Nicki Minaj had done a photoshop on Instagram
of herself as Spider Woman in the same pose and didn't see the humor in the comment. (I assume, anyway, and didn't appreciate Minaj being the butt of a joke she didn't understand.)
|
Response to betsuni (Reply #152)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:42 PM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
183. the butt of a joke?
![]() |
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #183)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:52 AM
pinboy3niner (53,339 posts)
216. Stick to the specific issue. No sense in making it global.
Oh, wait...
![]() |
Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #216)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:52 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
218. Cheeky cheeky!
![]() |
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #104)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:42 PM
rjj621 (103 posts)
336. Seriously?!?
That was deserving of an alert?!? wow.... just wow....
|
Response to rjj621 (Reply #336)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:51 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
339. Some people see nothing but the demons tattooed inside their own eyelids
and live in a state of perpetual poutrage.
|
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #104)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 02:14 PM
Exultant Democracy (6,594 posts)
343. "Explanation: Are you kidding? I want to see some Spider woman ass! Going to thread now" ROLF
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:55 AM
BainsBane (52,574 posts)
3. He made her look deformed
That is not a position the human body takes. Her head is jutting out of her shoulders strangely, and there is no reason for ass to be sticking straight up that way. Also, you can't be boney and have a round ass. It's one or the other.
|
Response to BainsBane (Reply #3)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:24 AM
pintobean (18,101 posts)
15. It's a sci-fi artist's depiction of a human/spider hybrid.
Why wouldn't it look deformed?
![]() |
Response to BainsBane (Reply #3)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:49 AM
randome (34,845 posts)
25. Another Todd MacFarland raises her inept hand.
Another 'hot' artist whose 'style' is to draw human beings freakishly.
I don't have a problem with displaying superheroes in a sensual or even sexual pose but I'd rather look at someone whose proportions are realistic and not drawn in a 'look at what I can draw' manner. [hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr] |
Response to BainsBane (Reply #3)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 12:38 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
49. You think that's deformed?
Check out anything, and I mean anything, that Rob Liefeld has ever drawn. How he ever got a gig as a professional artist remains one of the great mysteries of the age.
|
Response to hifiguy (Reply #49)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:52 PM
Liberal Veteran (22,239 posts)
68. Surely, you jest? Liefeld is a genius at drawing accurate humans.
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #68)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:28 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
74. And pouches. Always lots of pouches.
And tiny little feet that would never support the 600 pound roided-up gorillas that are the only male figures he can draw.
Stick a Rapidograph in a chimp's hand and you will get better work than Liefeld's. ![]() |
Response to hifiguy (Reply #74)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:52 PM
SwankyXomb (2,030 posts)
111. You're wrong
Liefeld never draws feet.
|
Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #68)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:05 PM
tblue37 (58,152 posts)
187. Captain america is carrying that pregnancy quite high. I believe
that's supposed to mean the baby is a girl.
(Yes, I know that's an old wives' tale and not really an accurate way to predict the sex of a fetus.) |
Response to tblue37 (Reply #187)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:34 AM
BainsBane (52,574 posts)
213. They aren't called superheros for nothing.
Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #68)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:32 AM
BainsBane (52,574 posts)
212. Ah, what is that sticking out of his chest?
Looks like a cross between the Hulk and Jayne Mansfield.
|
Response to BainsBane (Reply #212)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 02:12 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
258. Maybe it's a subliminal Deadmau5 shoutout?
![]() |
Response to hifiguy (Reply #49)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:28 PM
sibelian (7,804 posts)
331. This is my favourite...
![]() |
Response to sibelian (Reply #331)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:44 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
337. As I said, a chimp with a Rapidograph could do better.
Even in a career studded with incalculable amounts of staggering artistic incompetence, that one stands out. It would have received a D- in my seventh grade art class.
|
Response to BainsBane (Reply #3)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:57 PM
ancianita (30,830 posts)
155. Yeah, but it's typical of decades of this kind of comic art depiction of women's anatomy.
Response to BainsBane (Reply #3)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 12:54 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
200. Not a position a human body- that has been given super powers to fight villains with names like
"the green goblin"- takes?
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 03:01 AM
Prophet 451 (9,796 posts)
4. The fabric is probably UMF
Pretty much all costumes in the Marvel universe are made from Unstable Molecule Fabric, a substance discovered by Reed Richards that both clings like a second skin and resists damage better than normal fabric.
Yes, I'm a geek but I'm not even going to try defending that cover. |
Response to Prophet 451 (Reply #4)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:06 AM
Erich Bloodaxe BSN (14,733 posts)
32. What, is there a store that sells it?
You have to have a superhero card to get in? Or do everyday people in the Marvel Universe also wear it?
|
Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #32)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:36 PM
Prophet 451 (9,796 posts)
77. It's high-end stuff
Heroes and villains use a tailor called Leo Zelinsky. He's completely neutral and patches everyone's costumes up. Some civilians also wear it but it's high-end stuff, expensive.
Yeah, I know this shit. |
Response to Prophet 451 (Reply #77)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:40 PM
Erich Bloodaxe BSN (14,733 posts)
79. I'm just surprised they got that detailed about it.
That they put the tailor and so on into the canon.
|
Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #79)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 02:43 AM
Prophet 451 (9,796 posts)
259. Comics geeks notice EVERYTHING
Back in the Silver Age (Sixties-early Eighties), comics sold big enough and the fans were devoted enough that they thought about absolutely everything. So the writers had to invent whole support systems for both sides. There's a couple backstage tech guys who patch up the villains gear, a nurse who patches up the heroes and doesn't ask questions. Even a guy who trains all the henchmen that mastermind villains have.
|
Response to Prophet 451 (Reply #259)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 01:18 PM
Xyzse (8,217 posts)
268. WOW... You Sir, have outclassed quite a bit of comic-fans that I know.
I salute you.
![]() |
Response to Xyzse (Reply #268)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 01:58 PM
Prophet 451 (9,796 posts)
273. Thank you, sir.
I trained for years.
|
Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #32)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:40 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
80. Probably in the Baxter Building.
Yes, I am a terminal nerd.
![]() |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 03:24 AM
TreasonousBastard (42,084 posts)
5. I find this creepy rather than erotic...
the nose is odd and the mouth cruel.
Then, that huge, muscular thing sticking out the back is more reminiscent of a spider's abdomen than anything I would appreciate on a woman. It doesn't even make the grade for an orangutan presenting. Now, to do it right (if indeed such a thing is possible) who else remembers R. Crumb's Big-Ass Comics from our substance abused days? ![]() |
Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #5)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 03:45 AM
whathehell (27,867 posts)
7. R. Crumb was a sick bastard
I worked in a "head shop" in the early 70's and I came into contact
with his stuff frequently. I remember one strip that featured Mr. Natural having sex with an infant. ![]() |
Response to whathehell (Reply #7)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:59 PM
cemaphonic (4,138 posts)
72. There's a really interesting (and sad) documentary about him from the 90s
The movie makes it very clear that:
1) Yeah, he has some issues. 2) Compared to the rest of his family, he's a paragon of well-adjusted mental stability. |
Response to whathehell (Reply #7)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:27 PM
4b5f940728b232b034e4 (120 posts)
105. What's a head shop?
Slang for a therapist?
|
Response to 4b5f940728b232b034e4 (Reply #105)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:57 PM
whathehell (27,867 posts)
115. ------
head shops were place which sold pot paraphernalia -- bongs, rolling papers, pipes, etc.
|
Response to whathehell (Reply #115)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:07 PM
4b5f940728b232b034e4 (120 posts)
134. Thanks
Here in Seattle I've always heard those called smoke shops.
|
Response to 4b5f940728b232b034e4 (Reply #134)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 12:58 AM
mimi85 (1,805 posts)
202. Guess it's a generational thing.
Yeah, we called them head shops. Remember roach clips, you oldies but goodies?
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to mimi85 (Reply #202)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 04:00 PM
Blue_In_AK (46,436 posts)
286. I have a really cool one
that's like a little switchblade. You push the button and the alligator clip pops out.
|
Response to 4b5f940728b232b034e4 (Reply #134)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 06:50 PM
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (97,045 posts)
253. I live in the Seattle area
and I've always heard them called head shops.
|
Response to 4b5f940728b232b034e4 (Reply #105)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:58 PM
edhopper (30,661 posts)
117. Pot paraphernalia
and sometimes underground comics like ZAP.
I feel old. |
Response to 4b5f940728b232b034e4 (Reply #105)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:59 PM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
118. ...seriously?
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #118)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:04 PM
cwydro (49,029 posts)
122. Lol,
I thought the same
|
Response to cwydro (Reply #122)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 02:10 AM
BainsBane (52,574 posts)
205. I thought it was like when a young women I knew once asked what a slip was
It's been a while since women have worn them, so I guess it made sense she didn't know what it was.
|
Response to BainsBane (Reply #205)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:08 AM
cwydro (49,029 posts)
262. Omg yes
I remember slips!
|
Response to 4b5f940728b232b034e4 (Reply #105)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:00 PM
tazkcmo (7,096 posts)
130. *silently weeps* n/t
Response to 4b5f940728b232b034e4 (Reply #105)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:28 AM
JVS (61,935 posts)
263. A bong store. You can't say bong at the bong store though.
Response to 4b5f940728b232b034e4 (Reply #105)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:58 PM
Blue_In_AK (46,436 posts)
284. Seriously?
Oh, my god, I feel so old.
|
Response to whathehell (Reply #7)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:01 PM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
119. say what you will about the guy, he's not in the past tense yet.
Mr. Crumb is still very much alive.
His book of Genesis is something to behold, and I mean that. ![]() |
Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #5)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:37 AM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
19. What exactly do you think he's doing "right" here? nt
Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #5)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:43 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
82. "The WHOLE UNIVERSE
is COMPLETELY INSANE!!!!" - Mr. Natural.
And then there was S. Clay Wilson, who made Crumb's most perverse work look like effin' Disney by comparison. |
Response to hifiguy (Reply #82)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:31 PM
Luminous Animal (27,310 posts)
106. I've lived next door to Wilson for 30 years. Before his head injury, we used to call him Ass Clay.
Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #106)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:38 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
108. Met him at a signing in the bookstore I worked in
back in the early 90s. Hilarious and friendly guy. Nothing like his twisted comics. I think he drew me a Checkered Demon IIRC.
|
Response to hifiguy (Reply #108)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:54 PM
Luminous Animal (27,310 posts)
112. He gave me pork brains in a can that, after 20 years sitting on a shelf, burst open.
He's given quite a few things to my husband. He always had more respect and generosity for men than women.
I first met him at a corner bar, called Dicks, a few weeks after I moved in. His first words to me were, "Hi. I am a famous cartoonist, you wanna fuck?" And yes, he COULD be friendly but generally, even to his best friends, we was an asshole, drunk or sober. |
Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #5)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:48 PM
alphafemale (18,497 posts)
85. "that huge, muscular thing sticking out the back is more reminiscent of a spider's abdomen..."
Um....do you remember the character's name?
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 03:36 AM
Shrike47 (6,913 posts)
6. Gross. That's all I see. Gross.
Response to Shrike47 (Reply #6)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:32 PM
Reter (2,188 posts)
165. Get your glasses chaged
I'd love to have a view from the back.
![]() |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 04:23 AM
TlalocW (14,899 posts)
8. Eh, that's tame
Women superheroes/villains - and most of the men - are essentially drawn nude minus the nipples and any indication of something in the pelvic region, and then painted a non-skin tone to indicate a costume.
Case in point... ![]() TlalocW |
Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #176)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 12:10 AM
TlalocW (14,899 posts)
191. Here's another one that I remember caused some hubbub like the Spiderwoman pic above
![]() TlalocW |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:38 AM
littlemissmartypants (20,049 posts)
9. Thanks
Butt (sic) no thanks.
I'll stick with my Betty Boop. Love, Peace and Shelter. Lmsp 🙌 |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:03 AM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
10. this is exactly why I'm laughing at all the fanboys expressing outrage at the new Wonder Woman
She doesn't have large breasts and her ass isn't popping out of a bikini costume.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #10)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:45 PM
PragmaticLiberal (900 posts)
83. Most of the fanboys I've come across aren't upset that she doesn't have large breasts etc.
They feel that Gal Gadot is too small to play WW.
Not enough muscle etc. |
Response to PragmaticLiberal (Reply #83)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:49 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
87. then they show a picture of Linda Carter
![]() |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #87)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:55 PM
PragmaticLiberal (900 posts)
154. I don't consider those real fanboys.
Well, what I mean is there are "WW TV show fanboys" and "WW Comic Book fanboys."
The comic book fanboys are really just concerned with Gal being too petite. At least based on my experiences. |
Response to PragmaticLiberal (Reply #154)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:44 PM
jollyreaper2112 (1,941 posts)
338. Not all comic nerds
Well, I don't really have a dog in this fight but I always thought to play Wonder Woman you would need a fitness model. She'd be tall and have power but not ridiculous definition. There's curves padding out all that muscle. She would not look like a competition female body builder.
I've seen some Brazilian dancers who have that kind of build. For someone like She-Hulk, you'd have a little more definition but it would be really hard to pull off with a real live human without looking grotesque. Here's the thing, though. The men get power poses in these comics. The women get erotic poses. The difference? You don't see Superman posing like a gay male model in erotica. If a straight man feels uncomfortable looking at the male pose, it's got a homoerotic vibe. Sometimes it has to be pointed out. There are many men who still insist the volleyball scene in Top Gun was not gay as hell. I wouldn't find it offputting if everyone was naked like in Barsoom stories but when the men are clothed and the women practically naked, it makes me feel a little lecherous to read. |
Response to PragmaticLiberal (Reply #83)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 03:41 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
98. She's a bit
petite for WW, who is an Amazon, after all.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:24 AM
reddread (6,896 posts)
11. pig headed morality played for publicity
Thats a pretty nice piece by a highly regarded artist, and he didnt get that way by drawing clothes on women.
all this is just publicity fodder being stoked by faux outrage. But mention Jack Kirby and outrage cannot be kindled. there are no kind words for this sort of bogus double standard of outrage. played as fools. |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:57 AM
tridim (45,358 posts)
12. Yes, people have been freaking out about art and sex forever.
![]() Never, ever, look at manga. |
Response to tridim (Reply #12)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:53 AM
Johonny (18,205 posts)
28. Michelangelo should have put some pants on David!
Nuf said
|
Response to Johonny (Reply #28)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:35 PM
WinkyDink (51,311 posts)
143. David isn't depicted quite so....ready........Dammit. ;-)
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:04 AM
Blue_Adept (6,356 posts)
13. The outrage - except...
It's worth noting that this is a variant cover. It's available for retailers to purchase ONE copy of per 50 copies they order of the main cover. So if the title does "good" business of 100,000 copies, you might get 2000 of these made.
So it's not like it's every cover, the main cover and going to be on every newstand out there. comics aren't even on newstands anymore anyway. |
Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #13)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 12:42 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
50. Eeyup.
You have had to go to comic shops to get comics for going on 40 years.
|
Response to hifiguy (Reply #50)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:35 PM
Blue_Adept (6,356 posts)
107. I used to get them at my newsstand back in the 80's
Which is when the direct market really started to hit. I loved biking downtown with friends, buying new 60 cent books and delving into it week after week. It was a thrill.
I still read comics today, mostly trades though. And singles are bought digitally. |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #16)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:32 AM
pintobean (18,101 posts)
18. If spider man was in that position
would you say the same thing?
|
Response to pintobean (Reply #18)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:41 AM
LloydS of New London (355 posts)
21. Of course not!
Because male superheroes are never portrayed like that! If they were, you could bet the farm that Marvel would be flooded with homophobic e-mails and tweets! (You see, I'm against the misogyny.)
|
Response to LloydS of New London (Reply #21)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:17 AM
ProdigalJunkMail (12,017 posts)
35. see post #31... particularly the last image...
look familiar?
sP |
Response to LloydS of New London (Reply #21)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:44 AM
pintobean (18,101 posts)
43. .
![]() |
Response to pintobean (Reply #43)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:48 PM
Ilsa (60,847 posts)
186. SNL parody. nt
|
Response to LloydS of New London (Reply #21)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:41 PM
pintobean (18,101 posts)
124. I didn't alert on your hidden post.
I disagree with your opinion, but you should have the right to express it.
|
Response to pintobean (Reply #18)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:42 AM
MadrasT (7,237 posts)
22. Absurd question. Would never happen. n/t
Response to Post removed (Reply #16)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:47 AM
In_The_Wind (72,300 posts)
23. ***unsee***
[img]
![]() |
Response to Post removed (Reply #16)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:11 AM
Erich Bloodaxe BSN (14,733 posts)
33. Look at the last image of comment 31. With spiderman in pretty much the same pose.
I'm not fond of Manara's style anyway, all of his people look rather weird to me.
But if it's a 1 in 50 cover, I'm sure it was done intentionally both to generate more sales and more 'buzz'. |
Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #33)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:38 AM
gollygee (22,336 posts)
40. It's not at all the same pose
One looks like he's crawling, the other looks like her ass is lifted up for sex. The only similarity is that you can see butt cheeks in each of them. I don't see how you think they're "pretty much the same pose."
|
Response to gollygee (Reply #40)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:47 AM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
44. The denial is so thick in this thread
it'd be amusing if the broader implications weren't so fucking depressing.
|
Response to gollygee (Reply #40)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:53 PM
Erich Bloodaxe BSN (14,733 posts)
69. If you say so. (Edited)
(earlier text removed.)
I was a bit annoyed at your reply so I wrote something snippy back. It didn't deserve that sort of response, though. Just because it's a pose that strikes me as weird, and not sexual, and not much different from the other one posted doesn't mean that isn't how others see it. |
Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #33)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 12:21 AM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
193. It is pretty much the same pose and there are thousands like it in spiderman comics.
The spiderman crawl pose drawings are common in spiderman comics.
The other thing some folks who object to this picture seem to fail to see is that she is crawling from a higher position to a lower one. Try doing that without having the back of you at a higher elevation than the rest of you. Outside of how her butt is drawn, which is a little odd, there is nothing significantly different from the OP picture with the picture in comment 31. |
Response to Post removed (Reply #16)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:29 AM
Iron Man (183 posts)
37. Um, it looks like she just climbed up on the roof or landed on it.
That's the first thing you think of when you see that pic?
![]() |
Response to Post removed (Reply #16)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:41 AM
msanthrope (37,549 posts)
41. Your post is unintentionally revealing and hilarious. nt
Response to msanthrope (Reply #41)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:52 AM
In_The_Wind (72,300 posts)
47. unintentionally revealing
[img]
![]() |
Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #47)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 12:02 PM
msanthrope (37,549 posts)
48. Indeed....I'm always fascinated when a poster goes immediately to teh buttseks.
Me, I see a woman/spider hybrid landing on a roof ledge.
|
Response to msanthrope (Reply #48)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 12:54 PM
In_The_Wind (72,300 posts)
53. I see it that way too.
Go figure
![]() |
Response to msanthrope (Reply #48)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 11:27 AM
alphafemale (18,497 posts)
229. Not much different than an extreme religious fundy seeing the perverse in the mundane.
Not much different at all.
It must be scary to be in their heads. |
Response to Post removed (Reply #16)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:13 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
58. To be fair, Stan hasn't had anything to do with the comics
in about 35 years.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:31 AM
NV Whino (20,886 posts)
17. That's just plain ugly
And what's up with the nose?
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:38 AM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
20. And OF COURSE, some people on DU are defending it.
This is fucking routine at this point.
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #20)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:03 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
56. What's it like to live in your ivory tower
and be omniscient? Must be an interesting experience to know everything about everything.
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #20)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:33 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
76. The human body is divine and no one should be ashamed of it. eom
Response to redqueen (Reply #81)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:48 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
86. It's a freaking cartoon.
Get over it.
|
Response to Cleita (Reply #86)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:50 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
88. It's hypersexualization - her pose is pornified. It is a problem that many others manage to grasp.
Just because a noisy few here work so very hard to maintain the status quo, that does not oblige me to shut up about the issue.
So no, thank you, I will not follow your rude command. |
Response to redqueen (Reply #88)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:57 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
90. So according to you porn is evil?
Many of us don't think so.
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #88)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to redqueen (Reply #88)
hifiguy This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to hifiguy (Reply #99)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:58 PM
zazen (2,978 posts)
129. you'd never have the nerve to say that to an African American or gay civil rights advocate
but you feel you can mock feminist men and women who are concerned about the rampant harms of pornography.
I'm grateful to redqueen's "obsession" as you say with this single topic, like I was for Susan B. Anthony's obsession with that petty unwomanly selfish hysterical crazy thing called women's suffrage, or the "obsession" of the battered women's movement to keep women safe from domestic violence. And the not-so-subtle suggestion that she's aligned with crazy religious kooks is part of the usual anyone-concerned-about-pornography-is-a-prude jibe. Thank God there's a growing movement of women and men who are beginning to understand that widespread dissemination and masturbation to documented sexual violation of women and children is not men's God-given right. |
Response to zazen (Reply #129)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:40 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
145. I have said very similar things to
Obsessed extremists of various kinds i have met in my life including a guy I met in law school who admired Pol Pot and the occasional crackpot spouting "Communist conspiracy" bilge in the 1970 and 1980s and assorted religious loonies. I have little tolerance or regard for strident absolutists of any sort.
|
Response to zazen (Reply #129)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:40 PM
sibelian (7,804 posts)
334. YeeeaAACH.
"women and children" FOUL. This is the same junk Republicans used to aim at gay people, we were all paedophiles. Disgusting. Get this - Men like sex. It is normal to like sex and there is nothing wrong with sex, nor is there anything wrong with finding women beautiful or erotic. If some women can't handle being beautiful through some dumb inferiority complex, that's their problem, they are perfectly entitled to tell people they don't want sex, but they are NOT entitled to denormalise ordinary human biology by externalising their neuroses and claiming it's representative of a societal norm. |
Response to sibelian (Reply #334)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:58 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
340. IT may be EXACTLY the same argument, just as you say.
But it's DIFFERENT when they and not right-wingers or fundies are the ones saying it. How dare you question a (fringe to say the least) viewpoint that is obviously 100% correct in every way?
![]() ![]() |
Response to hifiguy (Reply #340)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 02:58 PM
opiate69 (10,129 posts)
346. Ah, but doncha know??
Response to opiate69 (Reply #346)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:34 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
355. Yeah. The hypocrisy here reaches epic, freeperland-like proportions sometimes
on certain subjects. I really expect better of lefties as we generally pride ourselves on being pretty rational folks. Speaking of freepers, I wonder if that open-air nuthouse is still around. Sure ain't gonna go over there to check....
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #88)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:32 PM
ancianita (30,830 posts)
164. I've read lots of comics and it's not. It's an art style depicting body fantasy that's not sexual.
I'm not in denial. I've read many comics since the seventies, and I've come to the conclusion that the audience is developmentally not into sexism but is definitely into power. This thread's visual is taken out of the historical context of typical comic book art style that seems sexist, but isn't once one reads how sex is almost never part any story lines. Even subliminally, teens have told me that they just fantasize about exaggerated body images, and that comics help them do that. There's no hate, submission, domination in superhero behaviors to support the argument of sexism.
Maybe what you might be perceiving as denial is just a difference of exposure that's more complicated than is being explained here. I don't pretend to be any expert on comic art, but I can, with some certainty as a feminist, not see these body depictions as problematic for young readers. Just suggesting that you consider further. |
Response to Cleita (Reply #86)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 02:15 PM
LanternWaste (37,748 posts)
275. So is it a human body to be proud of or a "freaking cartoon?"
So is it a human body to be proud of or a "freaking cartoon?"
"Get over it..." Tough old world when not everyone share's your own sensibilities... ![]() |
Response to redqueen (Reply #20)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:41 PM
Logical (22,457 posts)
149. Seems your alert failed 0-7 also. n-t
Response to Logical (Reply #149)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:43 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
151. Thanks for alerting me to the little ... whatever it is ... upthread.
Sad that grown men won't come out and say what they're thinking. Typical of a certain kind of man, though. Very.
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #151)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:35 PM
pintobean (18,101 posts)
166. "Sad that grown men won't come out and say what they're thinking.
Typical of a certain kind of man, though. Very."
![]() |
Response to pintobean (Reply #166)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:40 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
181. Wait til
she finds out the internet was made for porn!
![]() |
Response to pintobean (Reply #166)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 07:42 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
221. ....a certain kind of man
a certain kind of man, indeed.
![]() |
Response to redqueen (Reply #151)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 12:27 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
195. What kind?
You should come out and say it, i think.
|
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #195)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 10:53 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
255. Bluto is curious.
![]() |
Response to redqueen (Reply #20)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 03:49 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
211. What's even funnier is, it's not even the ACTUAL comic book cover.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/comics/illustrator-spider-woman-1-cover-sexual-critics-article-1.1913918
The alternate cover by Italian erotica artist Milo Manara will be an option for customers beginning Nov. 19. Some have blasted it as sexist and in poor taste, while other comic fans aren't offended
Wait, what, whoops? oh, well. I'm sure the outrage and attention will ensure no one wants to buy it, certainly driving the price down for what invariably will be a limited release. In fact, it seems totally insane that they would court such media outrage, if they wanted to sell copies of this limited alternate edition... I mean, it's not like telling people to be mad about something they would otherwise have no idea existed, raises its profile in the general awareness........ or anything. I'm sure now they are going to have one heck of a tough time, selling this limited edition "controversial" art cover edition! ...the fooooools! |
Response to redqueen (Reply #20)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 07:57 AM
sibelian (7,804 posts)
222. It's a PICTURE.
Why should it even NEED "defended"? WHAT is going on in your brain? |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:47 AM
Marr (20,317 posts)
24. They also had Manara do an X-Men book a few years back.
I thought it was practically satire, personally. Manara's undeniably an excellent illustrator, and he's done a lot of really beautiful work, but his approach clashes so weirdly with the subject matter in US comics that it's right next door to comedy.
Some of my favorite comic artists these days are women, so I'd say the industry is actually improving on this front. I remember when there just weren't any mainstream female comic artists. |
Response to Marr (Reply #24)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:39 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
78. When I was a very young nerd in the early Seventies
Marie Severin was the only woman artist at Marvel. I don't think DC had any.
There are a lot of great young female comic artists out there today. Animators, too. And that is a good thing. |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:51 AM
underpants (175,279 posts)
27. Nice deTAILed worked
![]() |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:56 AM
deathrind (1,786 posts)
30. That is pretty tame...
Compared to many other comic book depictions of women.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:05 AM
aikoaiko (33,301 posts)
31. Have you ever seen male spiderman comics?
Skin tight [IMG] ![]() Nice package. [IMG] ![]() Ass up. [IMG] ![]() really, have you ever read any comic? |
Response to aikoaiko (Reply #31)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:12 AM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
34. Really, do you know what an arched back looks like?
Not an artist, I presume.
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #34)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:36 AM
aikoaiko (33,301 posts)
39. Oh my. A slightly more arched back. The horror. Red lipstick, too. Long hair, too.
:eyeroll: |
Response to aikoaiko (Reply #39)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:43 AM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
42. LOL @ "slightly more"
I'm sorry that you don't get it.
Thank Goddess for the good people at the Hawkeye Initiative, and the millions more who are no longer clinging so desperately to their blinders. |
Response to redqueen (Reply #42)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:49 AM
aikoaiko (33,301 posts)
46. I accept your apology.
Response to aikoaiko (Reply #46)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 02:21 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
276. You will never get one of those
some here at DU are incapable of admitting to making mistakes. I agree with you 100%...and...you can totally see spiderman's junk...oh dear!
![]() |
Response to Rex (Reply #276)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:40 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
280. +1
And I am existentially amazed this thread is still turning up on the front page of GD after two full days.
|
Response to hifiguy (Reply #280)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:09 PM
Puglover (16,380 posts)
347. It is illustrative of how at times DU
sadly parodies itself.
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #34)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:25 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
65. Your unfamiliarity with the conventions of superhero art
and the artistic license taken therein is apparently infinite.
|
Response to aikoaiko (Reply #31)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:48 AM
LittleBlue (10,362 posts)
45. +1
Third pic is nearly identical. Outrage denied.
|
Response to aikoaiko (Reply #31)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:01 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
55. Actual testicles in the second picture, unless I am mistaken.
But that is totally different, because.... something.
|
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #55)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:51 PM
msanthrope (37,549 posts)
67. Actual moose knuckles. nt
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #55)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:58 PM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
116. He's spider-man, remember
those are egg sacs.
|
Response to aikoaiko (Reply #31)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:21 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
62. There you go, using extrinsic evidence.
That is NOT allowed!!
![]() ![]() |
Response to aikoaiko (Reply #31)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 04:55 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
103. I'd hit it. nt
Response to aikoaiko (Reply #31)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:12 PM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
175. Which is what I have been saying as someone who read the comics as a kid
The pose from that last picture is a very common one for spiderman and it looks a lot like the spiderwoman pose that people are freaking out about. I do think that the way her butt is drawn is a little over the top, but other than that, the drawing of spiderwoman is completely in line with how spiderman has been drawn.
|
Response to aikoaiko (Reply #31)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:33 PM
PoutrageFatigue (416 posts)
179. If it's inappropriate for a male character it's.... wait....
... never mind.....
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:26 AM
Rhinodawg (2,219 posts)
36. Thats disgusting.
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:36 AM
Iron Man (183 posts)
38. Clearly nobody here reads Spiderman comics.
![]() |
Response to Iron Man (Reply #38)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:02 PM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
120. Exactly. The pose being complained about seems completely in line with spiderman crawling poses.
The artist went a little nuts with her butt but other than that its ok.
|
Response to stevenleser (Reply #120)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:36 PM
WinkyDink (51,311 posts)
144. No; that's what we call "disingenuousness." And Spiderman isn't clad in only body-paint.
Response to WinkyDink (Reply #144)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:14 PM
Orrex (62,168 posts)
159. Then neither is Ms. Drew
If you look at pretty much any action shot of Spiderman from, say, the past 50 years or so, you'll see that his costume is drawn so that it hugs his physique with an intimacy far beyond the capabilities of mortal fabric. You can clearly see the outline of his ribs and his armpits despite the nominal cloth of his costume. If she's wearing body paint, then so is he.
Granted, the panels that Iron Man showed in reply #38 don't specifically feature the ass-cleavage, but male superhero buttocks are hardly overlooked: ![]() In short, the portrayal of Spiderwoman is 100% in line with decades upon decades of superhero illustration. Have you seen poor ol' Namor's costume, for chrissakes?!? ![]() Also: ![]() |
Response to WinkyDink (Reply #144)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:57 PM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
171. If you think that's disingenuous, you dont know what you are talking about. I provided
similar shots of spiderman downthread. There are tons of them. All you need to do is a google image search of "spiderman crawl" and you will see hundreds upon hundreds of them.
Anyone familiar with the comicbook series will recognize the picture of spiderwoman as being in a stance very similar to that of thousands of those images of spiderman over the years. as I already said. the way her butt is drawn is over the top, but outside of that the stance is not out of line with how spiderman is drawn. |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 12:48 PM
CAG (1,820 posts)
51. She's gonna have a super spidey wedgy
When she stands up
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 12:51 PM
brewens (12,121 posts)
52. Sheesh! Might as well show a "camel toe" as well. LOL n/t
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:00 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
54. Why oh why has President Obama not yet weighed in on this?
Controversial pictorial representations of the buttocks of fictional superheroes should be at or near the top of his list of issues to address. Female superhero buttocks exposure culture is not just going to go away by itself.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:07 PM
99Forever (14,524 posts)
57. Good grief.
The things some people get their undies in a knot over.
With all of the crap happening in the real world and I'm supposed to get up in arms over a freakin' comic book cover? Holy misplaced priorities, Batman. |
Response to 99Forever (Reply #57)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:24 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
63. This times a googolplex.
This is the flipside of the reichwinger who flipped out and had a cow over Land's End sending out complimentary issues of GQ to customers. I keep trying to believe we lefties are better than those mouth-breathers but things like this make it difficult sometimes.
![]() |
Response to hifiguy (Reply #63)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:57 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
70. But... but... but... BUTTOCKS!
Which is not quite the same thing as ZOMG BOOBIES!
|
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #70)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:31 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
75. LOLOL!
![]() So true. |
Response to 99Forever (Reply #57)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 04:29 PM
Iron Man (183 posts)
100. I like your comment.
It's the best on in this thread.
|
Response to 99Forever (Reply #57)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 03:46 PM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
234. Just because we complain about a comic book cover isn't automatically a distraction from
the real world. I'm tired of this "this issue is too trivial compared to that" type of argument... I never thought i'd see it in du.
|
Response to alp227 (Reply #234)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 04:33 PM
99Forever (14,524 posts)
239. Well bless your heart.
And never thought I'd see people needing a fainting couch over a comic book cover on DU.
|
Response to 99Forever (Reply #239)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 04:42 PM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
240. Here's a simple question: Is sexual objectification immoral?
And another one. does sexual objectification in popular culture influence unhealthy sexuality among people?
There's a damn good REASON for the fainting couch. |
Response to alp227 (Reply #240)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:08 PM
99Forever (14,524 posts)
241. It's a freakin comic book cover.
One I would have never seen if it wasn't posted here.
|
Response to 99Forever (Reply #241)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:09 PM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
242. You didn't answer my questions. Is sexual objectification immoral?
Fact: Many see the cover as having an undertone of sexual objectification. Answer my questions.
|
Response to alp227 (Reply #242)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:36 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
245. Many say they've seen Bigfoot in the woods
or Elvis at a 7-11 in Michigan, too. Believing something does not make it extrinsically true. An interpretation shared by few in the face of vast evidence to the contrary - see all the Spider-Man art posted in this thread - may just be a wee bit off-base.
|
Response to alp227 (Reply #242)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 06:43 PM
99Forever (14,524 posts)
252. I'm not going to to let you make demands of me.
You are nothing to me. Just pixels on a screen, of no more consequence to my life than a comic book cover.
|
Response to alp227 (Reply #240)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 02:52 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
260. No.
And No.
Both your questions are predicated on assumptions- like that there is some yardstick of "healthy" sexuality from which humanity has drifted away from due to [strike]sin[/strike] popular culture or something-or-other- Which, to call them "spurious" would be ....overly generous. |
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #260)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 12:07 PM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
264. Are you freaking serious?
Do you not think there should be a standard of healthy sexuality? I do not believe sexual attraction between humans is inherently sinful. But. There's got to be a moral line against things like incest, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. or abusive sexual conduct, or hypersexualization of women in popular culture.
I'm not blaming unhealthy sexuality solely on modern popular culture - after all, sexual abuse has existed as long as human beings have existed. But does popular media exacerbate, not solve, the problem? |
Response to alp227 (Reply #264)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 01:22 PM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
270. And murder, dismemberment, cannibalism and eating grapes are all horrible, too.
See what i did there?
I believe it is possible to have consensus on basic standards of normal human behavior and sex that don't include things like 'bestiality', without dragging imaginary bugaboos like "popular culture hypersexualization" into it. Unless you're seriously arguing that the supposedly "hypersexualized" (...compared to what? The Victorian era?) culture is actually encouraging people to have sex with animals. |
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #270)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 01:27 PM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
271. Guess what? Sex isn't sinful. But it needs its limits.
Just like fast food, alcohol, etc. That's real life.
I still stand by my view that hypersexualized culture creates an unhealthy, uninformed sexuality among young people. |
Response to alp227 (Reply #271)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 01:30 PM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
272. In my view the "popular culture" is an imaginary fiction, and the idea of "hypersexualization" is
Another one.
Furthermore every generation in its 50s and 60s think teens and twentysomethings fuck too much, or in the wrong ways. It never changes. |
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #272)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:35 PM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
279. Last part is true, but I am a 20-something,
and while I don't have an opinion about "f__king too much", I have strong opinions on popular culture and sexuality.
|
Response to alp227 (Reply #279)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 06:30 PM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
295. Clearly.
As do I, a crotchety old dude.
One thing i can tell you from my gnarled, yoda-like vantage point is that the so-called "popular culture" is apparently always going to hell in a frothy, frotting, fornicating handbasket. Elvis's gyrating midsection was going to cause the impending doom of civilization. God knows what deviant acts the kingsmen described, in "Louie, Louie". The Kinks dared to explore transvestism, in a popular tune. Madonna brought bondage to America's coffee tables. 2 live crew said... Something upsetting. Janet Jackson's nipple appeared at the Superbowl, heralding the apocalypse for certain this time. And so on. |
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #295)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 06:41 PM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
297. Back then, artists got castigated for MERE sexuality,
but 2 Live Crew's obscene, over-the-top "songs" make Elvis shaking his hips seem really, really tame.
|
Response to alp227 (Reply #297)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 06:43 PM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
298. I wouldn't know, i was too busy listening to the Dead at the time.
![]() |
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #272)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:45 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
281. Comics fans are one of the countless sub-sub-cultures
of the nerd subculture. Not a huge part, either, though it is relatively common currency there. I am a nerd and have been for decades. I know. Just read the second half of my sigline.
![]() |
Response to hifiguy (Reply #281)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:52 PM
Blue_Adept (6,356 posts)
283. Imagine the uproar if more anime designs, artworks, body pillows and figures were talked about here
Oh my. The body pillows alone. But at least those are marketed to both genres.
NSFW: https://www.google.com/search?q=anime+body+pillow&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS600&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=55P7U5_hOcz-yQS6p4HwCg&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QsAQ&biw=1920&bih=955 |
Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #283)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:59 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
285. Most of this thread is a perfect example
of people trying to engage with a specific and defined sub-culture that is completely and utterly alien to them and about which they know less than nothing. Moreover, they don't seem to want to learn anything about its conventions and history. The stuff in a lot of anime would make some around here actually physically explode. And the funny thing is that geek/nerd fandoms are among the friendliest, most open minded communities I have ever encountered. Speaking from recent first-hand experience I can certainly vouch for the brony community being such a place.
Ignorance in action is a terrible thing, as Goethe once said. I type this while proudly wearing a Derpy Hooves button on my golf shirt while at the Minneapolis public library. ![]() |
Response to hifiguy (Reply #285)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 04:08 PM
Blue_Adept (6,356 posts)
287. Exactly
I'm neck deep in it, have been since 1977 across comics, movies and anime, so it's near and dear and I see all the big positives that it does. I'm enjoying the way the comics community itself is forcing the change and growing up some, but there is also that honest and true respect to the fact that it is art and it can be employed in a huge variety of styles and designs.
I'd love to see people posting more about the positive books and raising the things that should be seen rather than continually going for the outrage. Imagine if people here discovered some of the great books written by men and women that appeal to both genders, or just to women, and understood the beauty and variety of the comics world. But all they see are superheroes, and even then just a sliver of the types and styles. |
Response to alp227 (Reply #240)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:22 PM
sibelian (7,804 posts)
325. "Is sexual objectification immoral?"
... it needs to have demonstrable moral consequences, we have to know what actually happens as a result of it, otherwise you may as well replace the term with "representations of sexuality". |
Response to sibelian (Reply #325)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:13 PM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
348. There's a difference between mere representation of sexuality and sexual objectification.
Examples of what sexual OBJECTIFICATION is: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2012/07/03/sexual-objectification-part-1-what-is-it/
Obviously not what can be objectively called healthy. You wanna know the moral consequences of sexual objectification? The perception among the public that women are not human! Period! End of story, no debate, nothing but the TRUTH, no matter how much framing/evasiveness you try. |
Response to alp227 (Reply #348)
Thu Aug 28, 2014, 02:13 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
369. At least that link tries to offer a somewhat workable, qualitative set of standards for what,
In reality, usually boils down to "that picture is sexually objectifying because i dont like it and other people think it is hot"
For instance, the 2014 SI cover. Oh, fuck, that was supposed to be the watershed of an example of "objectification"- but why? It was 3 undeniably attractive young women in bathing suits, on a beach. That's it. So let's break this down regarding the spider woman image, since that is ostensibly what the thread is about; 1) Does the image show only part(s) of a sexualized person’s body? No. 2) Does the image present a sexualized person as a stand-in for an object? No. 3) Does the image show sexualized persons as interchangeable? No. 4) Does the image affirm the idea of violating the bodily integrity of a sexualized person who can’t consent? No. 5) Does the image suggest that sexual availability is the defining characteristic of the person? This is a pretty subjective one, the biggest tent under which folks can park their objectionable "hot" images, but, still no, in this case I don't think so. 6) Does the image show a sexualized person as a commodity that can be bought and sold? No. 7) Does the image treat a sexualized person’s body as a canvas? No. |
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #369)
Thu Aug 28, 2014, 02:15 AM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
370. The article I linked isn't the *only* definition of "sexual objectification"
C'mon, you and I know damn well that SI swimsuit editions do have the intent of showing women as eye candy. The very friggin definition of objectification. BTW, are you a lawyer? Your posts make me feel like i'm in court!
|
Response to alp227 (Reply #370)
Thu Aug 28, 2014, 02:25 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
371. No, usually it's completely undefined.
If I have a goal here, it's to make people think about these concepts they just sort of accept as commonsense but for which there is very little "there" there, at least IMHO. (Which does not mean the concept doesn't exist, BTW)
This is by no means the only one. Generally, beyond the piece you linked, objectification is "defined" (such as it ever is) as any sort of sexually attractive image that the definer doesn't like. That's sort of what I've been saying. It's fine to say "eye candy is bad" or people finding scantily clad or nude members of the opposite (or same) sex is "bad" - I, personally, disagree - however, dressing it up in academic-sounding terms with broad and spurious assertions about spooky cognitive processes which take place when someone finds someone else physically, visually, sexually attractive- that to me deserves rebuttal or at least closer scrutiny or analysis. |
Response to alp227 (Reply #234)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:28 PM
Blue_Adept (6,356 posts)
244. Tell that to the people that are saying we should stop talking about 2016
and focus just on 2014. According to them, in every 2016 presidential election thread, we're not able to do two things at once or be distracted by other things.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:25 PM
lunatica (53,410 posts)
64. How else would they attract teen boys to read the comics?
That is their targeted consumer isn't it?
Before this boys got their jollies from the National Geographic photos of women with bared breasts in Africa. This is a fight we will never win because humans are hard wired for sex. We can only hope to mitigate it at best. I would suggest we pick our fights where we can make a difference. Freedom of Speech is what it is. Good, bad or indifferent. |
Response to lunatica (Reply #64)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:05 PM
busterbrown (8,515 posts)
157. Lunatica Please!!! Don’t forget the Nudist Camp Magazines..
First time I saw a complete woman’s body w/o clothes..True.. At that time on 42nd st.. Porn shops only had magazines revealing breasts..(of course there was probably tons of underground stuff) but Nudist Camp Magazines, shot at Nudist Camps were the only way to go.. Oh and yes they showed full frontal nudity of men as well. Probably talking 59,60...
|
Response to busterbrown (Reply #157)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 03:50 PM
lunatica (53,410 posts)
236. Oops! Didn't mean to be non-inclusive or intolerant!
My bad!!
LOL! |
Response to lunatica (Reply #64)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 03:47 PM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
235. So what if sex is natural? Doesn't mean EVERYTHING should be sexualized.
If more Americans knew what healthy sexuality was, "sex sells" would be obsolete!
|
Response to alp227 (Reply #235)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 04:17 PM
tkmorris (11,138 posts)
289. Who gets to say what "healthy sexuality" is?
You? Me? A committee to be named later?
|
Response to tkmorris (Reply #289)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 04:20 PM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
291. Do you object to a standard of healthy sexuality? nt
Response to alp227 (Reply #291)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 04:27 PM
opiate69 (10,129 posts)
292. Well,
how, then, do you define "healthy sexuality"?
|
Response to opiate69 (Reply #292)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:21 PM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
349. You or I don't get to decide what's "healthy",
science and morality do.
Healthy sexual attraction between two people has affirmed, informed consent between two unrelated adults. Simple as that. There's a reason why pedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc are considered unhealthy. And why sexual objectification is immoral. |
Response to alp227 (Reply #349)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:23 PM
Blue_Adept (6,356 posts)
350. But it's not that simple
Have you seen the other sex/porn threads where what you list as healthy sexual attraction has been disputed and degraded heavily?
|
Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #350)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:25 PM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
352. On which grounds is what I've defined "disputed"?
Religion? Jealousy? Ideology?
|
Response to alp227 (Reply #349)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:31 PM
opiate69 (10,129 posts)
353. Sorry...
As a free-thinking atheist, I simply don't "do" moral/immoral. And for someone who claims to be unable to decide what is healthy, you certainly seem to attempt to do precisely that.
Healthy sexual attraction between two people has affirmed, informed consent between two unrelated adults. Simple as that.
|
Response to opiate69 (Reply #353)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:37 PM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
356. Wow...so in your opinion morality doesn't exist?
So how do you consider what IS right/wrong or moral/immoral? What IS your moral worldview?
|
Response to opiate69 (Reply #357)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:48 PM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
358. OK, why'd you say earlier you don't "do moral/immoral"? nt
Response to alp227 (Reply #358)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:59 PM
opiate69 (10,129 posts)
360. Because I don't...
I know it must seem shocking that there are some who don't feel the need for an extrinsic motivation to be decent, equitable people, but there are. And whenever people start tossing around loaded terms like "moral/immoral", particularly in discussions about sex and sexuality, some of us see that as a huge dog-whistle, and start waiting for religious-right loons like Shelly Lubben, Judith Reisman, et al to start being referenced.
|
Response to opiate69 (Reply #353)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:53 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
359. Sometimes there are very simple answers.
Aren't there?
![]() And ironically enough "objectification" is a desperately subjective concept. The cosmos does have a sense of humor. |
Response to alp227 (Reply #291)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 04:27 PM
Blue_Adept (6,356 posts)
293. Yup
Because then you're starting to label things as unhealthy based on... what?
We've seen around here what's considered unhealthy and disgusting to many. Do they get to decide? I was engaging in the conversation with my girlfriend this weekend about some of the conversations here and when I mentioned that quite a few people viewed smacking a woman across the face as an act towards violence, she laughed. Because that's what she asks me to do to her on various occasions over the course of our many years together. Naturally, I had to tell her that the fact that she asks for it just means she's been ingrained to want it by the patriarchy. So when you set things as healthy in this regard, you then create a list of unhealthy sexuality. I think we had a lot of things called that over the years, including homosexuality? |
Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #293)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:24 PM
alp227 (31,592 posts)
351. I call things "unhealthy" because they are, not just my opinion.
Homosexuality? There's no evidence besides religious authoritarian bullshit that homosexuality is immoral or unhealthy.
And regarding the anecdote from your girlfriend, you're either conflating domestic violence and S&M (which are NOT comparable by ANY stretch of the imagination) or...gulp...your girlfriend is an abuse victim who has Stockholm syndrome. It's an objective FACT that sexual objectification in media influences negative views of women, ranging from the mere belief that women are little more than eye candy/sexual objects to acting on the belief via rape or sexual harassment. |
Response to alp227 (Reply #351)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:32 PM
opiate69 (10,129 posts)
354. Cite the sources for the claim...
It's an objective FACT that sexual objectification in media influences negative views of women, ranging from the mere belief that women are little more than eye candy/sexual objects to acting on the belief via rape or sexual harassment. |
Response to lunatica (Reply #64)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 04:22 PM
Iron Man (183 posts)
238. Many teenage boys read comics not to get titillation
but because the nerdy superhero fight and defeat bad guys. There's internet for titillation.
Broad brush much? ![]() |
Response to Iron Man (Reply #238)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:27 PM
lunatica (53,410 posts)
243. I'm sure some gay teenagers also read it for the superhero and superheroine titillation
Loosen up Iron Man. Sex is here to stay.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:01 PM
SomethingFishy (4,876 posts)
73. Wow... how disgusting...
like all these... just disgusting:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() And any of you who find these to be.. artistic... or... beautiful, are just a bunch of disgusting pervs. Quick!! Someone call John Ashcroft!!!! |
Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #73)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 03:41 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
97. OMG WTF NSFW!!! (nt)
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:48 PM
RandySF (43,145 posts)
84. This is just bad artwork.
Ass notwithstanding, it doesn't look good at all.
|
Response to RandySF (Reply #84)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:52 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
89. Even if it's good artwork, hypersexualizing female characters is fucked up.
Response to redqueen (Reply #89)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Name removed (Reply #92)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 03:26 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
93. that's like saying just don't buy racist sfuff
ignoring problems doesn't make them go away
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #93)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 03:29 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
94. We need the equivalent of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, but for Spiderwoman's ass.
I have a dream that one day fictional female superheroes will be judged by how good they are at stopping the bad guys, and not by what their butts look like in spandex.
|
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #94)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:03 PM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
121. It takes a nation of millions of badly drawn cartoon buttocks
to hold us back.
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #93)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to redqueen (Reply #93)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:07 PM
zazen (2,978 posts)
135. one day the commenters here are going to be so embarrassed. . .
I almost think that's why they're digging in more. When you've made derisive, ridiculing comments about the widespread sexual objectification and abuse of females and it's searchable on a database, you're dug in--you're invested. They've got such a long track record now of saying outrageous things that are Klan-worthy if said about African-Americans that I wonder if psychologically it'll ever be possible for them to own up to how entitled, blind, dismissive, and vicious they've been.
I appreciate your indefatigable attempts to nudge these folks to see reason. I never take the energy to try anymore, but I do jump in when I see them make comments about you reminiscent of the hateful comments made about 19th century feminists. They sound like men ridiculing women for public speaking in the late 1800s. It'd be funny if, as you say, the consequences of these attitudes weren't so dire. |
Response to zazen (Reply #135)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:22 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
139. Thank you.
The consequences of sexual objectification include widespread male violence (including specifically sexual violence) against women. Which is at pandemic proportions and shows no signs of slowing, though at least we seem to be at least acting as if these crimes deserve to be discussed as if they matter.
Doesn't stop the defenders. Doesn't even give them pause. So, so very far to go. |
Response to redqueen (Reply #139)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 12:40 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
197. "the royal we"
![]() |
Response to zazen (Reply #135)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:04 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
156. YES. "Klan-worthy" is the perfect description for those horrible Spiderwoman buttocks-defenders.
Shame on them.
|
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #156)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 03:09 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
207. Hyperbole. You know who else liked hyperbole?
Hitler, that's who!
|
Response to zazen (Reply #135)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 12:25 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
194. Yes, everything said here is going on your perremanent record!
Indeed.
I guess a lot is going to depend on who wins the revolution, hmmm. For all we know, it might be the scantily clad superhero butt artists. What then? |
Response to zazen (Reply #135)
Wed Aug 27, 2014, 08:11 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
367. 'They sound like men ridiculing women for public speaking in the late 1800s,' because they are.
Response to redqueen (Reply #93)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:21 PM
alphafemale (18,497 posts)
137. The true obscenity is imaging yourself oppressed because people disagree with you.
Don't buy it is exactly right.
Live by your own moral code and stop passing judgement/ |
Response to alphafemale (Reply #137)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:23 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
140. Exactly what people said when defending Duck Dynasty.
And progressives still spoke out.
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #140)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:29 PM
pintobean (18,101 posts)
142. I guess a lot of things just aren't so ducky.
![]() |
Response to redqueen (Reply #140)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:05 PM
alphafemale (18,497 posts)
146. So what do you propose we do with people that express ideas you don't like?
I'm just wondering.
Will every piece of art. Every song. Every word uttered aloud pass by you for approval? |
Response to alphafemale (Reply #146)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:25 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
147. Why are you focused on what I do or don't approve of? This is about *misogyny*.
Those who call out the sexual objectification of women will continue to do so, whether certain others whine about it or not.
Just as those who call out homophobia and racism do. |
Response to redqueen (Reply #147)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:18 PM
ancianita (30,830 posts)
161. For decades I've read the exaggerated female anatomies in comic book art as symbolic to readers of
the matchup of women superheroes' powers with their femaleness and maleness.
From my past exposure, I've read the context of their power in these comics as coequal with all the male characters and in no way submissive or demeaned. I don't think the female depictions here are any more or less exaggerated than are the bodily features of the males. The bodies match the power fantasies of the readers, which are actually not sexual, since sexuality doesn't enter into the comic plots I've read. I think these visuals are part of the typical developmental stage of pre-pubescent fantasies of their own wished for future body images. Based on my past associations with lots of pre-teen comic readers -- as a mom and high school teacher -- I don't think the misogyny argument really works for the comic book population, who are quite sensitive to gender inequities in their age groups and are aware of sexism in their society. I just can't agree here about "calling this out." I've read this stuff and see that the stories don't support sexism at all. |
Response to ancianita (Reply #161)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:25 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
163. Why are you focused on anatomy and ignoring the sexual objectification in the poses and costumes?
Male characters don't have boob-windows for displaying their ample chests, have half their ass hanging out, etc.
Have a look at this well-known project. It should make the misogyny crystal clear: http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/ That is, unless you're one of the many who don't consider the ubiquitous sexual objectification of women to be a problem. Goddess knows that'd be the overwhelming majority view, sadly. |
Response to redqueen (Reply #163)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:40 PM
ancianita (30,830 posts)
167. I do. The difference is that these here are not "women." I've read much on the artists, and they
are geeky types whose body image philosophies match their superhero characters' total power depictions. I've had to listen to kids' reactions to my questions about about these images, and have learned that they don't see them through our lenses about typical male/female objectification politics; rather, they're interested in the story lines and overall artistry of cells and story details. You could claim that they're being lulled into sexist roles, but from how I've read the comic plots and seen kids talk about them, I don't get that.
I learned to read comics their way and stopped seeing them as an adult. What you call objectification poses I now see as power poses. It's more about fighting evil forces with powerful bodies than it is about sexuality. |
Response to ancianita (Reply #167)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:52 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
169. These would be the same geeky kids who grow up
and have to have a full blown protest in order to address the sexual harassment going on?
http://time.com/3045797/women-comic-con-sexual-harrassment-petition/ Of course they're absorbing messages about women when they see women depicted as sex objects (as THINGS), and men as actual human beings. See the difference? ![]() |
Response to redqueen (Reply #169)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:01 PM
ancianita (30,830 posts)
172. All I can say is, the most feminist kids I know are both gay, straight, college level functional and
Last edited Sun Aug 24, 2014, 02:25 AM - Edit history (1) socially adept. Hundreds.
I think comics can reinforce desires for adult power and the morality of force, but they don't condition sexism. I can see that you're afraid that's happening, but attitudes of the general reader demographic just don't support your claims, in my experience. There are plenty of men in arrested development who sexualize what's in comics, but I don't see the comic art style or plots inviting that kind of projection. |
Response to redqueen (Reply #147)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:47 PM
alphafemale (18,497 posts)
185. Just because that is YOUR perception of it does not make it SO.
Should artists that create what does not meet your approval be jailed?
|
Response to alphafemale (Reply #185)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:41 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
189. Jail? Really?
![]() Not interested in your latest straw man argument. |
Response to redqueen (Reply #189)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:36 AM
BainsBane (52,574 posts)
215. You gotta give her points for creativity
Last edited Wed Aug 27, 2014, 07:08 PM - Edit history (1) It ratcheted up the banning canard to new levels.
![]() |
Response to BainsBane (Reply #215)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 07:31 AM
alphafemale (18,497 posts)
220. Him.
Seriously?
|
Response to BainsBane (Reply #215)
Wed Aug 27, 2014, 05:17 PM
Marr (20,317 posts)
362. Wow.
Your use of "him" there is about as sexist as it gets, and you do it giddily.
People so often twist themselves into the thing they claim to despise. |
Response to Marr (Reply #362)
Wed Aug 27, 2014, 06:59 PM
BainsBane (52,574 posts)
364. You ever hear of a mistake?
You have a lot of nerve calling me sexist. This mind-reading act of yours is getting old. You have a 0 batting average.
Say, are you sure this thread really isn't about promoting Hilary Clinton for President? The OP didn't say Clinton was the sire of Satan. It could be part of the vast Democratic conspiracy. Spiderwoman could actually be code for Clinton. ![]() |
Response to BainsBane (Reply #364)
Wed Aug 27, 2014, 07:21 PM
Marr (20,317 posts)
365. Oh yeah, I'm sure you called a poster named "alphafemale" "him" by *mistake*.
And didn't bother to correct it, even though they pointed it out at the time, three days ago. And still didn't bother apologizing or acknowledging the error to the actual person you insulted.
You could at least have the guts to own your low insults. That was just embarrassingly chickenshit. |
Response to redqueen (Reply #189)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 07:29 AM
alphafemale (18,497 posts)
219. Reply to wrong post. edit nt
Response to alphafemale (Reply #185)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:35 AM
BainsBane (52,574 posts)
214. Should women who dare to talk about misogyny be jailed?
![]() |
Response to BainsBane (Reply #214)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 08:19 AM
alphafemale (18,497 posts)
225. Not everyone agrees that it is misogyny.
But if you feel it is there must be someway you propose to stop it.
I am not in favor of banning anything. All ideas should be in the open. Being disagreed with does not make you oppressed. It also does not make the person disagreeing a bad person. |
Response to alphafemale (Reply #225)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:44 PM
BainsBane (52,574 posts)
246. Then don't invoke bullshit about jailing
If you can't mount an actual argument, just move on.
You are the only one talking about banning and you do so because you can't deal with the substance of the argument. Not everyone agrees on anything. That point is obvious. The point of cultural critique is to raise awareness. Clearly that concept is lost on you. |
Response to BainsBane (Reply #246)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 06:59 PM
alphafemale (18,497 posts)
254. If, as you assert, a certain depiction....nay, an entire genre of art
If, as you assert, a certain depiction....nay, an entire genre of art is an atrocity.
If it is so damaging to our society and females in particular as to prevent our meeting the full promise of our destiny? And if you now propose to offer mere culture critique do not expect that you will not receive that in kind. |
Response to alphafemale (Reply #254)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:15 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
317. Disagreement with the Borg is not allowed.
They are always right in every way. You are always wrong. You shall be assimilated.
Gads, I am such a nerd. ![]() |
Response to hifiguy (Reply #317)
Wed Aug 27, 2014, 08:01 PM
alphafemale (18,497 posts)
366. I was a nerd before it was cool. And did you see this?
Response to alphafemale (Reply #366)
Thu Aug 28, 2014, 12:08 AM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
368. Me, too. We weren't even called nerds then!
We were just "weirdos" who read comics and liked Trek.
![]() ![]() |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 03:32 PM
Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)
96. Where's the long strand comin' out?
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 04:39 PM
orpupilofnature57 (15,472 posts)
101. Aeon Flux was sheer erotica !!! And a strong image for woman Everywhere .
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 04:53 PM
Comrade Grumpy (13,184 posts)
102. Burning issue of the day.
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:38 PM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
109. I read Spiderman comics as a kid. I recognize this pose as very similar to Spiderman poses
Someone went a little crazy with the buttocks definitely, but other than that, there are a lot of times spiderman is shown in a similar pose.
![]() http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Womqz559KOU/THW92cPM-0I/AAAAAAAAAoI/y0vHIIrwM9Y/s1600/spiderman+crawl+image.jpg ![]() |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:56 PM
conservaphobe (1,284 posts)
114. Let's hope the cosplayers pick up on this right away.
![]() |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:32 PM
whistler162 (11,155 posts)
123. Not issue #1 just the re-re-vamped issue #1.
![]() |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:45 PM
PeteSelman (1,508 posts)
125. I think it looks nice.
Is there really nothing else to complain about than a comic book drawing?
Jeez. |
Response to PeteSelman (Reply #125)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 12:58 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
203. My problem with it, artistically, is that her face looks smooshed and 2 dimensional.
I don't think it's a particularly good piece of art.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:56 PM
jberryhill (62,444 posts)
127. it conveys athleticism
And, yes, male superheroes are similarly depicted all of the time.
That is a classic spiderman pose. |
Response to jberryhill (Reply #127)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:05 PM
Orrex (62,168 posts)
132. I was going to make that point as well
![]() |
Response to jberryhill (Reply #127)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:07 PM
Iron Man (183 posts)
133. Like i said upthread
It's quite clear some here have never read Spiderman.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:19 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
136. Wow, ... a woman thrusting her ass out conveys athleticism? Now I've heard everything.
Anyway, from more enlightened places around the net:
New Spider-Woman Cover Puts The Comic Industry's Women Problem Right In Our Faces http://mic.com/articles/96874/new-spider-woman-cover-puts-the-comic-industry-s-women-problem-right-in-our-faces Spider-Woman isn't good for women when she looks like this http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/8/20/6046577/marvel-spider-woman-cover-sexist Check Out Spider-Woman #1, Starring Spider-Woman's Ass http://io9.com/check-out-spider-woman-1-starring-spider-womans-ass-1624535918 And of course the comments are... like they usually are. Full of the same logic fails and derailments. As always, proving Lewis's Law correct. Over, and over, and over, and over... |
Response to redqueen (Reply #136)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:13 PM
tabasco (22,974 posts)
158. I just KNEW this thread would be entertaining when I saw the title
THANKS FOR THE CHUCKLES.
|
Response to tabasco (Reply #158)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 12:57 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
201. I would have been done after the one post, if it wasn't for the alert.
But shit, comedy gold. DU, you do not disappoint.
|
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #201)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 01:44 AM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
204. I would have passed it by as well butt
I knew what was gonna happen and couldn't pass it up. And as Steven Leser said, this has been a standard Spider-Man pose for fifty years.
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #136)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:52 PM
ancianita (30,830 posts)
168. I think you need to study more about comic book art. It's not intended to prop sexism. It just isn't
People here who read and "get" comic book art are not a bunch of idiots trapped in some sexist unconsciousness. You're getting flac because you're underexposed. And I don't mean that sexually.
Your feminist hammer is seeing nails where it's not needed. The title was provocative, but comic art you're seeing has a whole history and philosophy behind it that isn't sexist. |
Response to ancianita (Reply #168)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:55 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
170. You can reply to every single post I make, but I'm not going to ignore reality.
I'll stick with the people who see the sexual objectification of female comic characters for what it is, thanks.
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #170)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:02 PM
ancianita (30,830 posts)
173. Understood.
Response to redqueen (Reply #136)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 03:11 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
208. Apparently not objecting to the cartoon butt pose is a vicious attitude worthy of the klan.
Which, like, totally makes sense.
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #136)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 03:29 AM
Iron Man (183 posts)
210. Looks as though no one in those links you provided
read comic books or Spiderman.
![]() Talk to people who actually know what they're talking about. |
Response to Iron Man (Reply #210)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 11:01 AM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
227. And therein lies the problem. No one who has read Spiderman comics would think this unusual.
I think what you have are folks looking for images of women to be concerned about and they happened upon this image of spiderwoman and without understanding the context and history of the genre, they said, "Aha, exactly what we are talking about, here is an example of the problem!!!!!11!11!"
The thing is, they are right in general. Images of women in media, particularly the superhero genre and online gaming is a big problem. I am totally on board with that. But that does not excuse the knee-jerk reaction to this image of Spiderwoman which happens to be in line with how Spiderman is drawn. It does not help equality efforts of any group to react out of ignorance and that is what was done here. |
Response to stevenleser (Reply #227)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 11:13 AM
Iron Man (183 posts)
228. It just seems odd to me that people are finding offense
in an image that isn't offensive.
Spiderman has been doing that pose for over 50 years. Why is it a concern now? |
Response to Iron Man (Reply #228)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 11:38 AM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
231. There are several groups scanning the internet for inappropriate pictures/images of women
one such group is the hawkeye initiative who specialize in hypersexualized images of female characters in the superhero genre.
And 99.999% of the time, they are right, the images raised are completely ridiculous when you compare them with similar male superhero poses and images. One thing I will note is that the Hawkeye initiative does not seem to have taken up the issue of this Spiderwoman image. I think they would know better. |
Response to Iron Man (Reply #228)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:02 AM
LittleBlue (10,362 posts)
261. Because this is the blather generation
If there isn't anything click bait worthy to write about, create something. This week it's Spiderwoman. Next week it will be some other frivolous concern.
|
Response to stevenleser (Reply #227)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 12:17 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
265. It was the fans who reacted negatively first.
It is so pathetic how many people simply ignore reality so they can keep defending the misogynistic status quo.
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #265)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 12:41 PM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
266. Just like it was "The Doctors" who objected to Obamacare first, right?
Yes, you can find a few people in any group who are not representative to make any kind of point.
|
Response to stevenleser (Reply #266)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 01:04 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
267. Yes, and in this case there is also a clear wrong and right.
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:34 PM
Initech (96,257 posts)
148. Spider Ass Spider Ass does whatever Spider Ass does....
![]() |
Response to Initech (Reply #148)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:15 PM
pintobean (18,101 posts)
160. There's always some smart-ass
ready to pounce.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:22 PM
immoderate (20,885 posts)
162. But that's what Spider Woman looks like.
Really!
--imm |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:10 PM
Gothmog (126,573 posts)
174. This is in poor taste
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:16 PM
Rye Bread Pizza (37 posts)
178. As a male chauvinist pig, all I can say is. Yeah Baby! n/t
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:35 PM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
180. Don't believe those still busy trying to pretend the pose is no different than Spider Man's...
Last edited Sun Aug 24, 2014, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1) ![]() On edit: It is depressing as hell that I have to explain that they put spider mans head on her body to show how different it is from his. There are other side by side drawings showing how the illustrators don't arch his back so that he's thrusting his ass in the air, and I would paste one but seriously, there's really no fucking point, is there? If anyone still doesn't see it by now... |
Response to redqueen (Reply #180)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:44 PM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
184. A real superhero given crime-fighting powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider
could never do that, in reality.
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #180)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:49 PM
hunter (36,707 posts)
190. "If You Turn Her Upside Down, She Turns Into A Penis”: The Mary Sue’s Favorite Comments of the Week
![]() http://www.themarysue.com/the-mary-sue-favorite-comments-6 I got there from a link on thehawkeyeinitiative.com Here are some fully clothed Super Heros: http://www.themarysue.com/fully-clothed-superhero What's more frightening than distorted comic book women? Photoshopped magazine women! ![]() http://www.psdisasters.com/p/greatest-hits.html |
Response to redqueen (Reply #180)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 02:43 AM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
206. I see zero difference. ZERO.
given the long-established conventions of art in Spider-Man comics. Let me restate that: ZERO.
|
Response to hifiguy (Reply #206)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 08:19 AM
Violet_Crumble (35,854 posts)
224. It's like one of those spot the difference games. You've got to concentrate...
They're easy to spot if you scrunch up yr eyes, turn yr browser at a 76 degree angle, and stand exactly 2 metres from it while playing all 4 discs simultaneously from the Flaming Lips 'Zaireeka'. But even then you have to concentrate or you'll miss them.
1. Spiderman's butt is bigger 2. Spiderwoman has 'I am a tool of the comic book patriarchy!' written on her butt in invisible font 3. Their superhero costumes are different colours 4. He's male. She's female btw, this is the funniest thread I've read for ages! ![]() |
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #224)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 01:13 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
233. As Warren DeM said, it has been comedy gold.
Some people take incredibly trivial things as if they were some manifestation of the Unified Field Theory of Everything That Is, then have a snit and fall in it when the essential triviality of the thing is pointed out.
![]() |
Response to redqueen (Reply #180)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 03:24 AM
Iron Man (183 posts)
209. Are you being serious?
Response to redqueen (Reply #180)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 11:37 AM
Hosnon (7,800 posts)
230. Look at the fingers.
Those two pictures seem to be quite literally based off of the same template.
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #180)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:59 PM
TheKentuckian (23,947 posts)
248. What in the world are you talking about? What is supposed to be different in this side by side?
I don't think this distinction is anywhere near clear as you are making out. Like block of lead painted black with a brick wall in front of it kinda clear.
|
Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #248)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 06:16 PM
alphafemale (18,497 posts)
250. I have no idea what she is talking about with this.
Other than Spiderwoman has a more slender waist.
And the long hair and full face mask. |
Response to alphafemale (Reply #250)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 04:18 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
290. She is looking to her left
while Spider-Man is looking up and slightly to the right. Only difference I could see.
|
Response to redqueen (Reply #180)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 01:19 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
269. Are you saying then, That there is No Difference in the bodies because they
photoshopped Spiderman's head onto Spiderwoman's Body and then changed the uniform to match his head thereby giving him to be Spiderman but, in a Spiderwoman pose?
Are you saying that this is typically NOT a Spiderman pose? ![]() |
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #269)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:51 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
282. *CRICKETS*
When you are able to decipher that reply, please let me know what it says.
|
Response to Rex (Reply #282)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 07:14 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
299. I am really confused now.
Do you mean to say you do not understand my question to redqueen or, you will not understand if she replies to me because why?
you have her on ignore or, what exactly ... ? ![]() I am totally Not a Comic book Fanatic but, I understand the concept of mutated bodies and spidey tingling sensation. ![]() Looks to me like that is exactly what they did with that side by side. Am I wrong? ![]() |
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #299)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 09:54 AM
Rex (65,616 posts)
302. They look the same to me too...after 300 replies I am still
confused as to what is different about them...besides the gender and costume. I guess we will never get an answer.
|
Response to Rex (Reply #302)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 10:41 AM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
303. OKay, Not sure But, I think the point she is trying to make with this side by side is how
ridiculous is the pose, Period. That Spiderman Looks Ridiculous ergo: so does Spiderwoman.
However, since this is fantasy comic book land and these creatures are mutated genetics of spiders and humans combined. I also understand: both sexes/genders throughout this genre looks different/odd. I do understand that for comics the rooftop picture is *maybe* OTT even this genre but, I don't know because I don't read/look at comic books. Thanks. |
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #303)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 12:00 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
304. Read marvel and DC comics all my life, that is a standard 'pose' for spiderman to be in.
The fact that she is nude and just has some red ink to make it pretend like she has clothes on, might be bothering some people. She does literally look like she is running around in body paint.
But really that is standard fair for comics. The pose I guess means something different when it is a woman, is all I can come up with. |
Response to Rex (Reply #304)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 12:45 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
305. Okay -
She does literally look like she is running around in body paint.
Does Spiderman also look like he is running around in body paint? But really that is standard fair for comics. The pose I guess means something different when it is a woman, is all I can come up with.
I guess this is the point, too. ![]() Spiderman does crouch spider-y like and on rooftops, I know that - So, to me, the real issue is the body paint and if spiderman is not painted on clothes then, perhaps neither should spiderwoman ... ? |
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #305)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:01 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
306. No, spiderman looks like a fella running around in pajamas imo.
But he does sit on walls with his butt up and head down.
|
Response to Rex (Reply #306)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:05 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
307. Then to be fair,
I think Spiderwoman should also wear pajamas, right?
![]() |
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #307)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:07 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
308. To be fair yes. If nothing else it should not look like body paint.
I agree with ya there.
|
Response to Rex (Reply #308)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:11 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
312. nice chatting with you, Rex
![]() |
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #312)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:12 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
314. You too TA, been a while.
![]() |
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #307)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:11 PM
Blue_Adept (6,356 posts)
313. Honestly
Every artist approaches every character differently with their own style. Both in how the costume looks on them and how they move.
With a character like Spider-man, some make it more "spidery" with how he moves. Others make it more athletic. Same with Batman. Some go for more skulking in the shadows while others have him out in full force doing the action thing. There are so many interpretations of a lot of characters that you can't nail it down, especially as art styles grow and change over the decades. Spider-man of today is not illustrated as he was in the 60's when he debuted, the 80's or the McFarlane style of the 90's. Hell, the fact comics survived the 90's is amazing considering what an icon Rob Liefeld was as an artist (more of a marketer really of his work). I mean, look at the body designs he used: http://www.progressiveboink.com/2012/4/21/2960508/worst-rob-liefeld-drawings Those books sold hundreds and hundreds of thousands of copies. The Manara cover we're talking about here is a collector's item for probably 2000 at most. I'm just glad there isn't a "house style" that artists have to adhere to and we constantly get reinventions and new explorations of characters and designs that change with the times. And while we're seeing the discussion about the cover, it's unfortunate that it's overshadowing the eight or so other female solo books that have come out in the last year that also have Manara covers but also have some fantastic stories within that's showing the changes Marvel has been making to appeal to a wider and more diverse audience looking for more than what the books offered for decades. Here's a hilarious piece of both characters by Humberto Ramos: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-U8OvJwRiLsA/T7BWcJEXObI/AAAAAAAACWQ/sYpt57OFK0k/s1600/2012-05-09+12.26.48.jpg |
Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #313)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:14 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
316. Keeping it all in perspective, I am not even minutely upset about 2000 collector edition copies
but, I do think that if one mutant wears pajamas
then it would stand to reason that the other mutations of that genre would also wear pajamas no matter the sex/gender ... ![]() |
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #316)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:16 PM
Blue_Adept (6,356 posts)
319. She's not the same.
It's actually interesting IP history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Woman_(Jessica_Drew))
Her origin is nowhere near the same as Spider-man: "In her first appearance, Spider-Woman was to be an actual spider evolved into a human as imagined by writer/co-creator Goodwin. Her debut was shortly followed by a four-issue story arc in Marvel Two-in-One in which Wolfman presented a different origin retcon as he felt her original origin was too implausible for mid-1970s readers.[3] During this arc and the premiere issue of her own comic Spider-Woman was identified as the human Jessica Drew (combining the first name of Wolfman's daughter and the last name of fictional detective Nancy Drew[3]) who had memories of being a spider implanted into her by the terrorist group HYDRA. Her costume was also redesigned for her series so that her long hair was uncovered, becoming a prominent part of the character's appearance." |
Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #319)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:19 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
321. Always wondered why she had webbing under the armpits, now that makes sense
![]() |
Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #319)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:21 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
323. I must say that I do find it odd
that the female mutation appears body painted while the male mutation (of different origin, I understand) wears pajamas.
meh. |
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #323)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:24 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
328. Yeah I think that is what has some people upset, I saw someone use the term hypersexulization
to describe the image and I agree with that assessment. I think I spelled that word correctly.
|
Response to Rex (Reply #328)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:33 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
332. yes. And I can understand why it is used as an example of how
pervasive is the hyper-sexualization (sp?) of the female anatomy in our society. From a man in pajamas to a woman in body paint.
I am assuming that these copies are available to those not of majority status and that could be some cause for concern. I think the target audience for comic books are men/boys, correct? Although, I do realize that women/girls to a lesser extent also enjoy reading them. |
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #332)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:38 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
333. Men and boys, no doubt.
Also the people drawing these cartoons are mostly men. It would have helped if they would have put her in a costume and not body paint...I think that is what half the argument is about.
Why does Spiderman get a skin tight suit...but Spiderwoman get practically nothing but body paint? I can see the contention. |
Response to Rex (Reply #333)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 02:11 PM
Blue_Adept (6,356 posts)
342. Market Research Says 46.67% of Comic Fans are Female
http://comicsbeat.com/market-research-says-46-female-comic-fans/
Mind you, that's fans. Not buyers. There are more women buying now than a decade ago, but there are more that are fans and are more involved in other areas of the comics than the actual purchase of comics. They tend to go for trades more, buy online rather than stores, attend cons more than they used to and are more merchandise oriented. |
Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #313)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:16 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
318. Wow those are horrible!
Plus Spidey has a great sense of humor! Not so sure about the Hulk.
![]() |
Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #313)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:23 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
327. Liefeld is a topic all by himself.
He has essentially zero talent as an artist. As is discussed and illustrated wayyyy upthread, he is horrible. A John Byrne, George Perez or Neal Adams wouldn't employ him to sharpen pencils. How he makes a big-bucks living doing something at which is so manifestly horrible is up there with the Riddle of the Pyramids.
IIRC, the biggest selling comic of the modern era was the "new" X-Men book, just called "X-Men" as opposed to "The Uncanny X-Men" which was the flagship. I was manager of a sci-fi/comic shop in Mpls when it came out. We ordered 1200 total copies of all the cover variants for the first issue. 1200 copies for one shop. I think we sold about 900 copies. The rest are probably still in the back room at he new location... |
Response to Rex (Reply #306)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:07 PM
hifiguy (33,688 posts)
309. And has been doing so for more than fifty years.
I think Steve Ditko, the co-creator of Spidey, came up with that pose. Ditko took the "spider" part of Spider-Man pretty seriously.
|
Response to hifiguy (Reply #309)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:10 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
310. He did here is Spidey in his standard pose, pretty good mural imo.
![]() |
Response to Rex (Reply #310)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:18 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
320. Is this a picture of a real person in a skin tight body suit?
possibly photographed on a brick floor and then turned to make it appear to be a wall ... ?
|
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #320)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:20 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
322. I don't know, it is a mural.
But as you can see, he is wearing a costume...no body paint.
|
Response to Rex (Reply #322)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:23 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
326. yes, there appears to be a costume as opposed to body paint. Skin tight but, stretched across the
butt cheeks. Yes.
|
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #320)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:22 PM
Blue_Adept (6,356 posts)
324. Nope, it's a mural on a wall.
And probably the last thing I'll contribute here for a bit (work and all) is that one of the things that I love best about comics is that it does continually reinvent itself, even if it adheres to some tropes longer than it should.
Characters have evolved and changed with the times. Art styles have changed. Characters are re-interpreted by artists across all spectrums (you should see the Japanese Spider-man live action show!). And one of the best things is that they are continually looked at differently as new generations of artists approach them with different sensibilities. While not all may work for all people, some may be more offensive than others, each should be explored in its own way to see what can be unearthed from it. I love the interpretative nature of art and what it brings to the table and comic books are one of those few pieces of truly American culture out there that's unique. |
Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #324)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:26 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
329. I understand Mural on a Wall. My question was concerning how it was made.
Appears, to me, that is a blown up picture and they changed the perspective/shadowing so that the angle is a wall and not a floor.
Then they pasted the huge mural onto a wall. |
Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #324)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 01:27 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
330. Plus we need to remind ourselves that at one time, comic books were considered deviant reading
material. Now they are as mainstream as any other form of entertainment.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:41 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
182. THANKS OBAMA!
![]() |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 12:12 AM
jberryhill (62,444 posts)
192. She is a powerful woman
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 12:30 AM
OilemFirchen (6,915 posts)
196. NSFW
If you happen to be a scrivener.
![]() |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 12:45 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
198. "Kapow! Biff! SPLAT!" GD hasn't seen this sort of comic book excitetement since that time
Superman dropped Lois Lane.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:52 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)