Spider-Woman isn't good for women when she looks like this

[rjrjr]

Ok, I'll probably regret it but I have to ask: Where's the same venomous outrage over Zenescope comics? Personally I cringe at all their covers, every one. But I'm not their target audience.

Zenescope characters are usually public domain, there's not a whole lot anyone can do over the control of public domain characters.

 

Marvel is not public domain. They also actively market these characters to children, in comics and other media. It's irresponsible to use those same characters in the manner they do. There would be outrage if Disney made Minnie Mouse and Daisy Duck fanservice cheesecake caricatures traced directly out of porn.

 

The characters Zenescope use are marketed at children, by different companies who can't control the intellectual property when Zenescope uses them. Marvel characters are marketed at children, by Marvel, who has direct control of every aspect of their intellectual property, that they choose to represent in this manner.

 

Also, Zenescope isn't 40% of the market like Marvel is. When you factor in DC, whose business practices are identical, you're looking at nearly the entire industry being made up of smutty versions of the heroes children look up to. That's disgusting.

 

http://comicsalliance.com/starfire-little-girl-teen-titans/

 

Mainstream comic fans are exactly like Bronies.

 

But of course, what's wrong with that?

 

I was in the middle of typing up my response and you sent this. Exactly what I was saying.

 

Its unfortunately that most comic fans have been desensitized to the problem. Naturally, they don't see the issue, they have been looking at these books for years and never had to hear the perspective of an outside observer who can see the problem. And it goes without saying that the very creators themselves are desensitized to the issue too.

 

There are many comics that I have bought of the years that I wince at when my wife or kids see them. For example, Dynamite's Warlord of Mars comics. The unfortunate part is, I would have still bought those comics if the covers were less T&A too.

[rjrjr]

I don't really understand the backlash. Is it not possible that the visual sexualization of women in mass media is a problem? Is it not possible that images like this, taken en masse over the course of a lifetime, can warp the opinions of many different types of people, both consciously and unconsciously? Might it not be true that, even if it sells, and sells well, it's still not 100% cool? Or that someone could write an article like the one in the OP from a place of actual concern, and not just knee-jerk over-PC BS? I too think that hot women are hot, and I like to see them. But that doesn't mean I can't accept at least the possibility that there might be a problem in there somewhere, or that I could even be part of that problem in my small way.

Hey, don't get me started. I vehemently believe every school girl on earth should attend a required course in marketing imagery, photoshop, lighting, makeup and every other trick used to fool the their eyes and psyche. They are a target and need to able to intelligently understand what they're viewing. And it's definitely a HUGE problem when they can't.

 

This firestorm over over a single bad variant cover. I'm just not getting it. Other than the sense that it's "Marvel" and somehow that cranked the dial.

 

And it should crank up the dial exactly because it is Marvel. I would expect the same controversy for DC too.

[rjrjr]

Yeah, something seems different, don't you think?

 

 

Dupont, a great juxtapose that explains the problem exactly. The photo is a real human. Sexy, yes, but definitely real. The art on the other hand is ridiculous in comparison.

 

Couldn't help but notice we have another paraplegic drawing? Who thinks these cut off legs look correct?

[Davenport]

Anybody get boiled in oil over this SDCC Exclusive?

 

 

Or how about the Kotobukiya Bishoujo Spider-Woman? Who looks decidedly juvenile in the face and head.

 

Both are examples of distorted body types that will sell. Neither are meant to be depictions of "real people", no more so than the comic book drawn versions.

'Confusion' is in the eye-of-the-beholder as much as either beauty or offense.

[dupont2005]

If the attractive women in comics were portrayed like their big screen counterparts there would be no problem at all. I've stumbled upon this, it's a huge image so I'll link it instead of post it, but it's completely work safe. It shows how unnatural the body types as well as the posing and positioning of women are in comics, and when looking at this I can hardly believe Campbell is as huge as he is. I find his art slightly better than Liefeld, and definitely in the same tradition.

http://ajcarlisle.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/pin-up-or-real-mary-jane-watson-asm-601-art-by-j-scott-campbell-other-artists.jpg

[dupont2005]

Anybody get boiled in oil over this SDCC Exclusive?

Probably. Which is why nearly zero women read comics. Which is why Marvel had a panel promising to improve their portrayal of women in comics.

[dupont2005]

'Confusion' is in the eye-of-the-beholder as much as either beauty or offense.

It's no coincidence that nearly the entire population of women on the planet find these comics to be unreadable garbage.

[Speedy-D]

I don't really understand the backlash. Is it not possible that the visual sexualization of women in mass media is a problem? Is it not possible that images like this, taken en masse over the course of a lifetime, can warp the opinions of many different types of people, both consciously and unconsciously? Might it not be true that, even if it sells, and sells well, it's still not 100% cool? Or that someone could write an article like the one in the OP from a place of actual concern, and not just knee-jerk over-PC BS? I too think that hot women are hot, and I like to see them. But that doesn't mean I can't accept at least the possibility that there might be a problem in there somewhere, or that I could even be part of that problem in my small way.

Hey, don't get me started. I vehemently believe every school girl on earth should attend a required course in marketing imagery, photoshop, lighting, makeup and every other trick used to fool their eyes and psyche. They are a target and need to able to intelligently understand what they're viewing. And it's definitely a HUGE problem when they can't.

 

This firestorm over over a single bad variant cover. I'm just not getting it. Other than the sense that it's "Marvel" and somehow that cranked the dial.

This particular Spider-Woman cover doesn't matter. It will make zero difference in the bigger scheme of things. It's just the example that happened to get this dialog started this time.

 

And the problem is not just how this affects the schoolgirls who see it, although that is definitely a big part of it. It's also about the schoolboys who see it, the men who see it, and internalize it in a quite different but similarly problematic way.

 

And as I alluded to before, I'm no prude, and I'm hardly some rabid PC Handbook thumper. In person I'm way less PC than I often show myself to be around here. But I can at least acknowledge that there might be something going on with the depiction of women in all media, TV/magazines/comics/movies, all of it, that's harmful to all of us. Not just to those of us with "innies," but all of us. And how well it sells? That's either irrelevant, or more likely a root cause of the issue.

[Davenport]

'Confusion' is in the eye-of-the-beholder as much as either beauty or offense.

It's no coincidence that nearly the entire population of women on the planet find these comics to be unreadable garbage.

Ok, I'm out. (thumbs u I didn't realize you were speaking for "nearly the entire population of women on the planet."

 

The industry obviously needs a new Comics Code Authority to clean it all up for humankind every where. Sorry to be so slow on the uptake.

 

I'm old enough to leave discussions like this to those creating the world they want to live in. And I'm extremely grateful to have lived in mine. I could appreciate both the photo-realism of an Alex Ross as well as the whimsy of a Chuck Yeagle. Good times.

[Lazyboy]

I agree with you, Dan. When I answered originally, it was because I read the article in another light. Quite often there are people who are horrified by things that are not such a big deal...and they MAKE them into huge issues that do nothing but further drive wedges between people who might take a more modified stance. I usually just blink my eyes and turn the page.

 

When I first looked at the picture, my reaction was ..ehh...dumb pose, as Marvelfangirl later said, VERY uncomfortable...but it didn't even occur to me that it was body paint,

 

Seriously...body paint with her genitals exposed? Unless she's missing them altogether, kind of ludicrous to think it would be possible for her to crouch like that.

 

 

 

So, again...just dumb and not such a big deal...but then I read some of the posts here and I was embarrassed. Are there really people who would still in this day and age say some of these things in PERSON?

 

 

Spider-Woman is not wearing body paint on that cover. It just kind of looks that way because of the way it was made.

 

How many of you would be comfortable with Spider-man naked wearing body paint?

 

 

I would say at least all the people who have posted that picture here over the years and the person who is about to post it now that you brought it up. you for bringing it up, Sharon.

[H0RR0RSH0W]

What I am really confused about is all these legless heroines

[kav]

They're never boob or -less

[Ares]

 

Milo Manara has drawn that Spider-Woman image from a different angle…

 

“Given that some people have seen, or pretended to see, my Spider-Woman in a gynaecological position, I’m sending this sketch to show how, from another angle, it is a posture that has a sense that is not necessarily erotic or pornographic . I would be grateful if you could incorporate this sketch into the debate.”

 

Fair enough Milo. But I think it’s not going to make much difference.

[kav]

Milo buddy any time the woman has her in the air it doesnt make sense from a climbing viewpoint-women climbing don't put their torso down and up.

[kav]

Would anyone disagree that due to evolution, men are more visually oriented?

[Speedy-D]

*sigh*

[Dr. Balls]

*sigh*

 

I agree. I'm checking out of this thread. It's just...disappointing.

[kav]

Sorry-I forgot mentioning any differences between the sexes was not PC.

[Speedy-D]

*sigh* *sigh*

[ImageMask]

Tail lights on a cover rather then head lights.

 

So?

 

Nothing to see here Move along.