Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Comic Books >

Superdickery

Page: (1)2

20:18 / 27.04.06

The following was originally posted in the DC Universe Surgery thread.

Khorosho
Pre-Crisis DC was so wrong in so many ways. Now I understand why it had to be put down:

[from Superdickery]

I think we all get the idea.

Over in the other thread questions were asked about how we should respond to these images, and whether any or all of them represent a deliberate attempt to build in sexual subtexts.

20:31 / 27.04.06

Actually the above slew of panels, cut, as they are, from their context remind me an awful lot of Fred Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent, specifically the examples of panels with a subtexts Wertham deemed unsuitable for children...

21:14 / 27.04.06

I find myself always wondering if truly there's a line dividing a)sidekick (specially one named Dick) as the hero's chubby (wich maybe Super's IMP may fit here); b)sidekick as son (in a dramaturgic way, still sort of the hero's chubby); c) just straight-on gay boy who crossdresses as a girl named Robin; d) other I can't remember...

I remember as I read ASS#2's line "Robin? Great Kid" as if truly there were no inuendos in their relationship (and I can remember seing Bats&Dick as something, at least, weird since I was a kid). Truly more like father&son than anything else (sort of like Michael and George Michael in Arrested Development. A (loner, in Bruce's case) widower and his kid. Simple as that -- altough in AD there is sometimes some stuff as well).

I'm really hoping Morrison recontextualizes and has a callback to the SuperIMP to see how he'd work that in. Though I still feel I'm the only one who thinks so, but GM always sort of treated superheroes consciously knowing why these herculeans super-muscle myths appeal to the crowd (and I felt there was that feeling in Flex and ASS#3). Since Flex and Joyce, I always ended up seeing these (even if with a wrong conclusion) sexual subtexts in narratives.

21:27 / 27.04.06

This one is the most disturbing of all. I've seen this one before on another site that also has no explanation whatsoever for its origin.

With many of the other examples, it's possibly accidental and completely innocent. But this one is just fucking weird.

Young prepubescent naked boys and two costumed fellows who are generally considered to be in their early thirties. The funny part is that Supes is sort of blushing. "Uh, you first, Bruce. Have you got a Bat-Speedo tucked in there somewhere?"
"No. Just a sock."

NAMbLA, anyone?

21:32 / 27.04.06

I read the spanking ones as probably free of sexual subtext. When these issues first came out, spanking-as-discipline didn't have quite the social stigma it carries today (for some). Also, I am reminded of something I read somewhere (maybe even on Barbelith) about how Superman comics were aimed at kids under 12, so the adult characters were given decidedly juvenile personalities (i.e. Superman always pulling pranks on Lois 'cos SHE'S A SILLY GIRL!). By this reasoning, Silver Age DC is so spank-happy because it's something kids can relate to.

"I'm super-powerless--except from the waist down!" I reckon is just another piece of awkwardly-phrased Silver Age DC dialogue. "Look! An ear in the fireplace! He must be on the roof!"

The "golden rain" and Robin's mysterious sweat(?) you could probably make a case for, I suppose, but it still seems to me that so much of the humor in these examples comes from seeing panels out of context.

What d'you make of this, though? Dealing with young kids (again) who write in and ask why don't Superman and Supergirl get married, and it's up to the editors to explain to kids who don't really grasp the cousin taboo? Superman is very non-judgemental of intermarriage between Earth cousins, too, you'll note.

miss wonderstarr

22:13 / 27.04.06

Actually the above slew of panels, cut, as they are, from their context remind me an awful lot of Fred Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent, specifically the examples of panels with a subtexts Wertham deemed unsuitable for children...

At least some of those were notoriously and (presumably) deliberately taken out of context too ~ even cropped so they'd look more shocking and gratuitous.

My question on the previous thread was about how we respond to what now seem like gay overtones in these old comics. A couple of thoughts come to mind:

* we could ask whether these were intentional, as creators' attempts to sneak sexual (specifically homosexual) innuendo past censorship, either as a bawdy joke or an expression of gay identity, or indeed both.

* we could remember that apparently, these comics were valued at the time by at least some young gay men in a repressive era, who found their only positive images of same-sex love in officially-straight texts like superhero comics (whether those images were intentional or not).

What I suggested on the other thread is that Superdickery might be taking the line "look at these comics we thought were innocent... they're full of perversion!" In some cases, where spanking seems to have had innocent connotations in the Silver Age and now has a naughtier, S&M air to our eyes, this might be hard to argue with (unless people into S&M object to being called "perverted" ~ I don't know).

But where the "hidden" meaning that now seems clear to us is along the lines of "Batman seems to be cuddling Superman round the waist" ~ ie. they're in a gay clinch ~ then to chuckle over the "deviance" that passed 1950s censors by seems a bit more problematic.

As I noted on the other thread, I'm not accusing anyone on Barbelith's response of doing that, and I'm not certain that Superdickery is doing that. I haven't looked at it closely or recently enough. However, last time I looked casually, I did feel it might be identifying "hidden perversion" that amounted, basically, to men fancying each other.

00:32 / 28.04.06

00:55 / 28.04.06

Sure, miss wonderstarr, but can you explain my contribution to the thread? Because I can not.

01:02 / 28.04.06

Superdickery is a comedy site.

It's clear that there are regular moments of "Woah, Mansex = Scary!", but mostly it's on the basis of editorializing for what the site's author views as comedic value for his audience.

Debating its intellectual responsibillity is like deriding somethingawful.com for it's intolerance of internet subcultures.

Certainly there's a discussion to be had on the topic of "Homosexuality As Scatological Humor" that's so common in entertainment these days (on and off the internet), but I'm with the folks who chalk Superdickery.com up to harmless internet comedy site. They've just as many, if not more, images showcasing straightforward Silver Age craziness like "Sgt. Gorilla", "The Girl Who Loved Hitler", "Jimmy Von Olsen", or good old Matter Eater Lad.

01:26 / 28.04.06

take a look at lois' eyes...where she's looking...

"in liquid form"...lol....Superman's the man...

06:40 / 28.04.06

Oh, I definitely agree that Wertham is equally guilty of decontextualizing his examples...

miss wonderstarr

07:18 / 28.04.06

Matt, this was my only attempt, on the other thread:

wonderstarr (miss)

00:15 / 26.04.06
I thought that one must be about not being able to take their masks off to swim, for fear of revealing their secret IDs. It was one of the few I could see any innocent explanation for, actually.

Oh no, hang on... is it about the boys breaking the law because there's "No Swimming"? This is like a puzzle-pic.

I don't think I'm talking about intellectual responsibility, LDones, but equally I don't think that because something's meant as a joke (and it's often very funny, to me at least) you can't ask where the joke's coming from, and what preconceptions (eg. secret gayness = hilarious and pervy) the joke is based upon.

Again, I'm not necessarily pointing a finger at Superdickery for this. I wouldn't do that without going to the site again and trying to find some examples.

07:35 / 28.04.06

I would present that the origin of a lot of the 'shock' of homoerotic/pornographic/BDSM overtones in old superhero comics arises from feeling that it was subconsciously boiling to the surface, frothing at the mind-membranes of the men who made the comics.

I think the barely-veiled hyper-repressed sexuality may be what sets off shock alarms more than simple intimations that Batmand and Superman may make assbabies at will.

Certainly old Wonder Woman comics, which made next-to-no pretense about their sexual liberation agenda, don't read as so shocking as Well-Enjoyed Superspankings - even though their content is most definitely homoerotic and often thoroughly over-the-top with sexual innuendo - spankings, BDSM, and same-sex shenanigans all in attendance.

I've thought several times that Superdickery.com easily contains the makings of a glorious, serious intellectual dissection of hidden gay and bi sentiments in mainstream comics history, if someone were to sift through it and get with the analysis.

I would also think a large part of the shock comes from the notion that, as stated earlier, these entertainments were largely considered for children, and runs similarly to the shock of learning (at the time) shocking truths about childhood myths like Thanksgiving, Santa Claus, or that Helen Keller was a (gasp) Socialist.

Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero

07:58 / 28.04.06

I didn't catch what was odd about this one until the second time I looked. It just didn't read weird to me, of course that's who Batman would immediately think of. I haven't read a Batman book in years, so I've no idea how the relationship between Batman and Robin is presented today. Does it feel any less...open to interpretation?

The facial expressions are brilliant in the above picture. The Flash especially.

12:07 / 28.04.06

I love this stuff so much. Some of it is, I think, unintentional but some of it is, in my opinion, intentional as all get out. I write for a living and part of what I write are film and book reviews. Lots and lots of film and book reviews. I'm constantly slipping in sexual jokes, odd word choices that are open to interpretation and weird allusions just because I can. It's not a particularly mature thing to do, but it's entertaining, it sometimes gives you something to focus on in what would otherwise be a bleak endeavor (would YOU like to review RV, HOOT, CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN 2 or BIG MAMA'S HOUSE 2?) and if it slips by an editor there's nothing that makes you feel more disproportionately clever.

I can only imagine that a lot of comics writers back in the day, living in New York, working on material that some of them regarded as work for hire, would do the same. But that's just my two-cents.

13:30 / 28.04.06

Looking at this, it's pretty clear that at least some of this was intentional. Maybe all the words don't have the same connotation they do now, but Toni Gay and Butch Dykeman being told to straighten up is a bit too much for coincidence.

miss wonderstarr

13:38 / 28.04.06

Toni Gay is the (presumably) long-running title character, though, so if that's a gag it's a big one rather than a cheeky throwaway. It is hard to believe there was no intentional double-meaning behind this page, I agree. Maybe there were gay writers aware that they had a knowing gay readership who would pick up on and appreciate these clues; I imagine (I'm not sure) that during the 1950s, words like "gay", "butch", "dyke" were familiar on the necessarily-underground homosexual scene, rather than common currency among heterosexuals.

Interesting that Toni Gay is also an example of "headlights" art ~ again, an attempt to sneak past the censors, but in this case an attempt to slip in soft-porn pics of women for (again, I'd guess) straight adolescent males.

15:44 / 28.04.06

Someone posted ASS#3's first page above.

I had assumed on my first reading that it was intentional by Morrison. Or that if it wasn't intentional, it was just a unconscious and universal narrative motif that had always been based on hidden sexual imprints and patterns (like the rubbing the "lamp" so the Genie --manGod-- would pop-up--like A.D. Consider Vinamarama and all of it's sexual subtexts, like the Lotus-"lamp" for instance or that Sophia brings Ali back to life as a Superman in his own bed after she gave him a 'special liquid' to drink -- not so much the 'cup of blood' here. And all the Oasis and nymphs motifs in stories and 'hero's journeys' along history).

But I had assumed that Morrison was playing on that consciously, since 'till now ASS has been played out like this 'apologies to the american sweetheart' for all the abusive treatment and atitude towards female gender on comics, pop culture etc (specially in terms of Silver Age Sups). And since it seems that Morrison is actually trying to play with ambiguities (#1 cover with SuperStoned; #2 with MonstruousSuperWanking; #3 with SuperCockGrabber) and through out the storyline is REALLY a matter of gender, relationship and sex being played out (all as a tantric journey symbolized by SuperFeats) makes me want to read Bulleteer again...

Now concerning SuperDickery... I just don't know. I swear to God, everytime I see one of this my mind changes it's opnions.

07:02 / 05.05.06

It's interesting that Batman's the only character in that picture who actually looks worried, isn't it? The other characters look slightly bummed-out because, well, their girlfriends might die, but hey, they're only girlfriends. There's more where they came from.

But the bond between a hero and his sidekick is a special one...

21:22 / 11.05.06

A real cover.

Spyder Todd 2008

22:14 / 11.05.06

Just... Wow. Man, people suck.

22:32 / 11.05.06

So, is The Advocate trying to out the actor or the character?

02:04 / 12.05.06

I'm curious why people suck for looking for or finding gay subtext in a Superman film directed by openly gay Brian Singer - who was quite clearly interested in gay subtext in his X-Men films, and still succeeded smashingly in making them appealing to a broad mainstream audience.

It's been stated before that the 'closeted' aspect of the Clark Kent/Superman relationship was interesting to Singer, and I see no reason why it wouldn't still be.

All Acting Regiment

07:52 / 12.05.06

I think, Matt, that your picture probably means one of the following.

A: Supes and Bats turn up to bust the same group of illegal swimming boys. They turn to look at eachother in shock. Robin sez: "Hey, Dad, don't argue with Superman, you can bust these illegal swimmers together!"

B: Supes and Bats are unsure as to whether they should really spend their time and effort busting this group of illegal swimmers. Bats: "Surely there's worse things happening?" Robin sez: "Haha, it's some illegal swimmers."

C: As Miss W said upthread, they aren't sure whether to join in the fun, what with the no-masky-offy stuff and it being illegal.

D: Some crafty criminal has arranged some sort of tip-off about a big crime going down, in order to tie up S&B while the villain gets off. Away. Gets away.

13:33 / 12.05.06

Slate outs He-Man here and then links to Brokeback Snake Mountain and Defamer's page. The argument is that He-Man is a masculine fantasy taken to an extreme, which circles back into the opposite.

Here's the important part of the article in a paragraph:
Prince Adam, He-Man's alter ego, is a ripped Nordic pageboy with blinding teeth and sharply waxed eyebrows who spends lazy afternoons pampering his timid pet cat; he wears lavender stretch pants, furry purple Ugg boots, and a sleeveless pink blouse that clings like saran wrap to his pecs. To become He-Man, Adam harnesses what he calls "fabulous secret powers": His clothes fall off, his voice drops a full octave, his skin turns from vanilla to nut brown, his giant sword starts gushing energy, and he adopts a name so absurdly masculine it's redundant. Next, he typically runs around seizing space-wands with glowing knobs and fabulously straddling giant rockets. He hangs out with people called Fisto and Ram Man, and they all exchange wink-wink nudge-nudge dialogue: "I'd like to hear more about this hooded seed-man of yours!" "I feel the bony finger of Skeletor!" "Your assistance is required on Snake Mountain!" Once you start thinking along these lines, it's impossible to stop.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:58 / 12.05.06

I'm with LDones, there's absolute nothing sucky about that Advocate cover. You do know the nature of the publication, right, Spyder?

Spyder Todd 2008

14:36 / 12.05.06

Um. Actually, no, I don't. And for that I apologize. I was in a bit of mood yesterday, and I'm thinking I misinterpreted it completely. Apologies, all.

18:21 / 17.05.06

sorry, couldnt' resist.

00:09 / 29.05.06

That last cover gives me a serious case of the squicks.

04:29 / 29.05.06

Oddly, I seem to be having the opposite reaction to most of you, in that looking at the Batman panels in this thread make him seem like more of a father figure than he ever actually seemed when I read the comics.

I wonder if he's really just an idealized big brother, with no girlfriends to get in the way.

05:40 / 07.11.06

I had to bring this thread up back again.

I was looking for cheap brazilian editions of old superman comics on this sort of our version of ebay, and came up with these. Yes, it means the same thing on portuguese than it does in english (I had even seen one with that cover up there where Superman was about to rape the little boy in big bold letters SUPERMAN BI). And I have absolutetly NO idea what that was supposed to mean in it's original intent.

this one kills me:

(his rush and desperation until climixing to the moment of pure joy and liberation in a pin-up with those letters...)

This can't be healthy:

Superman's such a booty call, I can just imagine the big-hulk-guy calling him, rudely saying "strip, I'm on my way", Superman tries to stand up and say something, and HulkGuy rudely hangs up on him, leaving Superman to strip silently in tears.

12:31 / 08.11.06

"I'm coming, Bruce, I'm coming... HHHSSS"

from a preview of "Superman & Batman versus Aliens & Predator" which as title has gangbang written all over it.

13:48 / 10.11.06

you know what they say about big feet, right?

(This one is quite recent as well. The girl's hypnotized... at least the artist seemed to notice what he did, or it's actually intentional)

04:13 / 11.11.06

That Action Comics issue with Superman showing his.. er... costume to the kid was actually my first-ever comic. There is, for the record, dialogue on the cover that someone has removed -- something about the kid refusing to believe that Superman is Clark Kent.

19:58 / 26.01.07

Diggin' up the old thread...

I've been reading All Star Sups only, but every once in a while I see in a few blogs that comics from today have these very same things (I believe ASS has them as well -- for a wordsmith the acronym alone would be a continuous joke-thread easy to do, but that was probably unconscious from DC. I do think many from ASS are intentional. It's Morrison, who made a hero afraid of his bearded crush and his sidekick dolphin who's afraid of dipping himself in water named "Chubby" -- no wonder the hero/comic is named seaGUY, dodging "Seaman").

I just wonder if it's that hard for a professional storyteller to include such things in his work. And it always sort of reminds me of that episode in Arrested Development where Gob has an idea for a cartoon of himself as Mr.Bananagrabber (since he steals frozen bananas from his cousin -- G*d, that sounds awful). And the rival-brother Michael steals the idea, but is worried about it -- "Well, I guess he could steal bananas like Gob. But why would a banana grab another banana? That's the sort of thing I don't wanna have to answer...", there are some clear winks from the writers about these "unconscious subtexts".

The creator of Arrested Development used to write for "Golden Girls", one of dozes of shows whose writers were conscious about their gay demographics and tried to secretly include them (read it was featured in the documentary "Tickled Pink". Haven't yet the chance to see it, but got the info from imdb and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tickled_Pink). The camp Batman was also one of them.

And there's always the prime example, Ben Hur. Gore Vidal and some other writers intended the subtext, included some actors and left Heston off-board. I think it's the top example (along with the shows from the documentary above) that illustrate a possible intentional playing on the old comics (and some recent -- the recent ones I can imagine better, they look like they have even more "coded" misogyny, homophobia/"homo-sounding" and ego self-massaging).

Page: (1)2