Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Video & Multimedia
In reply to the discussion: Spider-Woman's Big Ass is a Big Deal! [View all]Response to SunSeeker (Reply #64)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
263 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It is not the same pose. Spiderwoman's ass is featured WAY more prominently and much higher.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#8
You can have a sexy, muscular Spiderwoman superhero without portraying women in a degrading manner.
Veilex
Sep 2014
#81
Nope. In none of those is he swaybacked and his butt turned up, anus exposed.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#228
So you think this artwork is "sexist bigoted crap" but you have no problem with other spiderman art?
Veilex
Sep 2014
#75
And since we're looking into the definition of the two words, let me google that for you:
Veilex
Sep 2014
#84
I'm not telling anyone what they should find sexy. I am just pointing out sexism.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#93
Nope, Spiderwoman does not "equal sexism." But the Milo Manara version is sexist.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#100
"It's pretty sad to see so-called adults arguing over such ridiculous things"
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#133
I don't expect a superhero to look normal. But why can't she look strong like Spiderman?
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#187
Of course. And am I not allowed to comment when that expression is offensive? nt
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#159
Calling that the "exact same pose" as the person in the OP video does is inaccurate.
Gormy Cuss
Sep 2014
#7
No one is regulating positions. We're just objecting to the degrading depiction.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#168
I am not ignoring anything. The Spiderman pose is not same nor similar to the Spiderwoman pose.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#87
Please cite a post in this thread that shows Spiderman drawn in a sexist way. nt
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#119
The interesting thing here is that our culture, thanks largely to the catholic church...
Veilex
Sep 2014
#74
No, she's supposed to crawl up the side of the building the same way Spiderman does.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#28
oy I don't get all the controversy over a comic book cover if folks want to get upset
azurnoir
Sep 2014
#20
More shocking is that supposedly progressive DUers don't see what is wrong with that cover.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#24
This isn't about slut shaming a cartoon woman, it's about how a cartoonist portrays women.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#37
"Sexual attractiveness" is not the objection. It's the degrading, powerless pose of Spiderwoman.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#137
Try doing anything with your head down, swaybacked, with butt cheeks spread open.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#145
The pose is degrading. You have a misogynistic view of what is "natural" for women.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#148
You have yet to show a Spiderman pose in a Spiderman comic that warrants rebuke. nt
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#97
Feminists do not "have a problem with anything that is female that arouses straight men."
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#65
You think explicit depictions of sexuality or nudity indicate perversion?
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2014
#126
So leaving aside a subjective disagreement on interpretation which is probably pointless to argue,
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2014
#155
Why are you not more concerned with the impacts of degrading female images on 13 year olds?
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#157
"the impacts of degrading female images on 13 year olds" - let's, shall we say, "unpack" that.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2014
#167
As far as I'm concerned, there is at least one totally meaningless concept in your post.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2014
#174
If this was a racist cover, no one would be saying no kids would be "impacted."
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#176
And if it was a triple decker ice cream sundae, it would need to be eaten, or it would melt.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2014
#179
It's nothing like racism because it's women being degraded. Who cares, amiright?
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#180
My daughter would have to be a cartoon superhero. However, that cartoon superhero appears to be an
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2014
#193
I suppose Marvel will make money off this, with folks like you buying their porn comics.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#199
You sure make a big fuss defending something you "don't give two shits for." nt
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#209
I'm defending the idea that the picture of spiderwoman's butt is not, actually, that big of a deal
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2014
#211
You're defending selling a comic with a degrading rear penetration porn shot on the cover to kids.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#214
Again, there's no point in trying to argue over subjective interpretation, but you're wrong.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2014
#221
Oh, right, I called you "Nostradamus", which is a well-known abusive insult. After, of course, you
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2014
#223
Yes, it was mocking name-calling. After you asked, repeatedly, that I make a prediction.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#226
Right. You insist on making it personal because you seemingly can't deal with the fact
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2014
#229
You obviously have plenty of time to keep badgering me with long-winded pointless posts. nt
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#232
Yes, let's give Marvel an award for profiting off selling woman-degrading porn to 13-year-olds.
SunSeeker
Sep 2014
#136
So--- which Presidential candidate in recent years was responsible for this quote:
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2014
#256
Even better than those Drain-o ads that had "One Million Moms" so upset.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2014
#156
The big deal is that people don't think it's a big deal, which PROVES it's a big deal.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2014
#198