BARBELITH underground
 

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


Scary Sex Stuff

 
  

Page: 12(3)45678

 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
14:05 / 15.05.07
... now that Spider-Man is outted as Parker, now that everyone knows and presuming the black costume hasn't made everyone forget, are there people out there in the MU making digital porn fakery with Peter and MJ or Peter and random other celebrities?

Considering how much digi-porn there is showing off super-heroes as it stands, living in a world of actual super-beings would mean that it would be an exponetially larger quantity in the MU. And it has been hinted at with references to mutant pornography being mentioned (although, there's an undercurrent there that mutant porn is a kinkier, more dubious niche of pornography versus Sue Richards invisible supersuit pictures) in passing -- I'm mostly thinking of New X-Men there. And yet...the pornography would be so bizarre in a world of unstable molecules and clothing worn by Emma Frost.

Maybe that's what Adam Warren's Empowered will end up looking like, but I imagine the satire there will be fairly laid back.

It was pretty light, yeah, although it had its moments -- Empowered and her buddy Ninjette looking up boy/boy and girl/girl super-hero slash fiction was pretty funny -- especially because in the story context the characters they were reading about were real people, people they knew and worked with. There was a lot of sex going on but a lot of it was concerned with Emp's pleasure as much as her partner's, although it's totally idealized cheesecake/beefcake sex with hot manga bodies. The book starts out with a lot of "Wonder Woman on Crack" bondage scenes -- it's hard not to take Golden Age Wonder Woman as a distorted, confused inspiration for the book -- but once Warren starts building characters a bit, he lets go of the very superficial lampooning. I like that it just takes all of the psychosexual implications of superheroes and just runs with them. And the characters are aware of it, Emp's never presented as being a positive figure while in costume yet at the same time she's humanized by everything going on around those scenes, and we're given a pretty decent view into her head. It's never about Emp learning a lesson but just developing her own confidence and sexual agency.

Actually, now that I think about it, the Wonder Woman bondage drops away for the most part (*not entirely) when Emp gets into a relationship and starts having decent, fun sex -- on a narrative level, clearly Warren's interest was going elsewhere from super-battles and lampoon a bit, but on a meta-level it's like a very rigid structure is being shattered (the one-note hilarity breaking under the strain of character growth), and it's the development of a fuller consciousness of sexuality that renders the need for subtextual sex moot*. It's not perfect or fully actualized but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

*- There's something problemmatic about the implicitly negative portrayal of bondage and BDSM, but I think it can be dealt with on a contextual level, and it *is* being imposed on her from others versus her own desires. The subtext is there, though, but possibly that becomes more of a plot or character point in the unpublished volume 2?

For supertights stuff, there was basically that Elseworld's Finest with Supergirl and Batgirl, and... the occasional point in something Grant Morrison or Gail Simone are writing, and that's it. A fair bit of Runaways.

There's something going on with Vic and Nico in Runaways and Nico's tendency to deal with depression by trying to make out with her friends. She's starting to develop some sexual hang-ups already and that's getting in the way of her and Vic actually developing a fully-fledged relationship (although I'm only going by digests, so maybe it's already on its way up into the sunlight). It seems pretty naturalistic versus contrived antisex and I've liked that some of the characters approach Nico and her actions in a very antisex "you're a slut" sort of way but the narrative itself doesn't judge her- and some characters, like Vic, don't view her that way, and it never impedes her status as leader.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:16 / 15.05.07
then seeing fans try to correct the statement of sculpture-thingies based on those portrayals, by adding a belly and knocking some teeth out?

I thought the idea of the mock-up I think you're talking about was that it showed the ultimate result of the attitudes on show in the real model. She has a black eye, notice.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
14:33 / 15.05.07
I think we may be heading into the territory of conflicting feminisms with that mock-up and those responses to said mock-up; as in, is it better to extend the thought to its natural, horribly shocking conclusion (to induce "waking up") or is it better (from what I think Decadent's getting at) to respond by going in a completely different, ostensibly more positive direction?

Both responses have their pros and cons.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:41 / 15.05.07
From what the guy in the CBR thread said, though, I got the impression that his wife had mocked it up as a satire, rather than an improvement- "this would at least be more intellectually honest", or something of the sort.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
16:12 / 15.05.07
Which is what I'm saying -- the shock extension thing = satire. Which isn't the only way to respond, but is a valid one...
 
 
This Sunday
16:42 / 15.05.07
I don't really have a lot of disagreement with what the impetus behind the adjustments were, although couching it as 'intellectually honest' gets my dander up a tad. I'm just thinking the superhero industry either needs a good solid mean vitriol-suffused satire, along the lines of the Occasional Superheroine Vicki Victim thing, in print form, or, a book that just sets itself off at a new default, a functional, less creepy default. With happy, perhaps non-off the cuff-judgmental sexuality. Pointing out the flaws is fun, it feels good for a little while, but ultimately, I don't know that just quietly stopping doing all the wrongness isn't a better way to go.

Both are valid responses, as Papers states. I'm finding one more functional, but part of that's issues with that specific alteration (the MJ statuette) temporarily making me distrust where that vitriolic direction would take us.

And then there's the option of rampant detournment. Rewardingly petty, full of equal opportunity exploitation and pandering, and capable of knocking the kneecaps off an offensive attack-meme at twenty paces. Larsen's Dragon losing his clothes a lot more frequently than most male supertypes. Joker as obsessed wouldbe love-interest in the Elseworld's Finest mentioned above, pumping up his body with the help of special please-make-sexy drugs to get Batgirl's attention. 'She has to notice me now!'

That MJ thing, again, but just putting her in a different or specific context could adjust that thing across so many levels. Is there a series of laundry-doing MU women statues? Black Cat, Gwen Stacey, Aunt May. Can Spider-Man play, too? Show off his tight rear in a special edition? Or a Cap in torn jeans all eighties style holding up a little American flag with a silly grin and a box o' Kleen Soap?
 
 
miss wonderstarr
19:39 / 15.05.07
Can Spider-Man play, too? Show off his tight rear in a special edition? Or a Cap in torn jeans all eighties style holding up a little American flag with a silly grin and a box o' Kleen Soap?

I think that'd be kind of fun, but I guess there the pleasure would be in a reversal of normal roles ~ a sort of camp play with the heroic icon by making him coyly perform domestic tasks ~ whereas with MJ, the implication seems to be that this (washing man's clothes while dressed like cheesecake) actually is the conventional and proper role of a loving wife.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
20:55 / 15.05.07
Can Spider-Man play, too? Show off his tight rear in a special edition?

You betcha true believer! (Warning, this pic is rated ASS, and probably isn't all that safe for work)
 
 
Mug Chum
10:04 / 22.05.07
Is Marvel trying to send out the message that they don't give a f*** at all? Or they gave up the "veiled" aspects and will be specializing in hentai and porn for good now?

NSFW
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
15:25 / 22.05.07
Heroes for Hire has always been a bit cheesecakey, though, hasn't it? It's some sort of evil universe version of the Birds of Prey?
 
 
This Sunday
16:27 / 22.05.07
I'm forgiving Heroes for Hire because it is on one level always a cheesecake book. It just is. Whereas, oh pickrabbitouttahat: Mighty Avengers could use a little tweaking. I like the writing, but the hero-dynamics on the cover to issue three, and especially the ad copy for said issue, is a little much. Partly because I just don't care for Frank Cho's work, but really 'Plus, Tigra guest stars. Yes, Tigra. Frank Cho drawing Tigra!! Did you hear us? FRANK CHO DRAWING TIGRA!! Which Avenger is Tigra dating? Prrrrr!!' is half the preview text. And, y'know, if it were that good, people would only need to note it once.

Just play 'replace the name' and see who else it works for. Green Arrow's my only strong contender, so far.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
16:51 / 22.05.07
Tigra was only in, oh, one scene? Maybe for two pages? I'm surprised they didn't include the fact that she's in lingerie in their preview text.

Power dynamics of that cover -- are weird. Really, really weird. Sentry is not a big gun except that we're constantly being told that he is and he's shoved in our face even as we're also being told he's one of the junior Avengers in this group and certainly isn't in any kind of a leadership role. And yet? Stronger placement on that cover. Widow and Tigra don't really need to be his Bond Girls on that cover, primarily becaue Tigra's a random cameo guest and Widow's definitely a senior Avenger. Mind you, both of them have a history of vampy behaviour*.

And yet...Ultron on the cover is old Ultron, sexless Ultron, which seems like an odd amount of restraint with the new ultra-naked anatomically-incorrect proto-Jan Ultron(ika).

*- whatever that means, and maybe you can level it against any female Marvel character, although it certainly works in a different way with She-Hulk.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
17:25 / 22.05.07
Heroes for Hire has always been a bit cheesecakey, though, hasn't it?

I'm forgiving Heroes for Hire because it is on one level always a cheesecake book.


Wellm you're both entitled to this opinion - however you must accept that it is an opinion that helps make mainstream comic books a despised and detested medium, and helps make people who are not chronically socially maladjusted winky-heads think that people who read mainstream comic books are.

You are very much the problem, guys.
 
 
This Sunday
17:57 / 22.05.07
Point, Flyboy. I was responding more to the post (and the series), I think, than the image. To expand, I am forgiving because the fiat of the book, on one level, is posey cheesecake, but that specific cover... the eroticized wimpiness of the women in it, okeh, that bothers me. The fetishized victimization. The erotic part, not so much (even if those are some seriously oddly drawn bodies), so the 'porn' aspect isn't an issue (for me), and I'm forgiving mostly from burnout. But yeah, your right, it's not good to let things slide for reasons that amount to that's how it goes, eh.

I don't get the sense the book's falsely advertising itself, though. I mean, there's a market for the book, it's fiction, and so I'm inclined to let them have their market so long as it's not misrepresented as something else. The Mighty Avengers cover is more misleading, in that sense, as would be DC's current Supergirl stuff, apparently. It's like Chaos! or Avatar, I guess. Sure they publish material I'm not interested in, and some things I find offensive or distasteful, but they're usually not pretending it's there to promote healthy inspiration for young children.

I find the Fables series and Bill Willinham's comments surrounding certain elements of the book to be more reprehensible than I do that Heroes for Hire has some offensively simpering superheroines surrounded by slimy tentacles. Because Fables, like Mighty Avengers is marketed and presented differently.

But, again, you're right, in that it's not really an either/or issue, and I was sort of treating it like one.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
18:33 / 22.05.07
In what sense is the most recent cover of Mighty Avengers "misleading"?
 
 
This Sunday
18:46 / 22.05.07
Well, for one thing, Black Widow and Tigra aren't really Sentry's backup bondgirls, are they? Further, the difference in poses on that cover, of presentation and characterization, if it's not misleading are still suspect. But, I think it is misleading, because that's not what we're given inside, really or what Bendis has been selling it as so far. The emphases are off.

The ad copy was off, too, but it was also really annoying. The cover was slightly less annoying but just as misrepresentational.

Both covers seem to have a problem letting superwomen be dominant or potent though, with the Avengers on scoring slightly better.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
20:13 / 22.05.07
Wellm you're both entitled to this opinion - however you must accept that it is an opinion that helps make mainstream comic books a despised and detested medium, and helps make people who are not chronically socially maladjusted winky-heads think that people who read mainstream comic books are.

Well, I wasn't really saying I was forgiving it, but simply acknowledging that it isn't that surprising a cover -- it's not something I would choose to read or even pick up from the shelf and look at -- and have no desire to give financial credibility by directing comic-buying dollar towards -- but it's there and it comes from a long line of similar images which are ultimately a huge problem. I'm not even sure exactly how to articulate my response, but Decadent's comment about burnout works; it's hard to get hugely angry when it's just yet another example of the same and some days I'd rather look for something more positive. Other days, sure, holy vengeance and death-spawn upon the world...

Well, for one thing, Black Widow and Tigra aren't really Sentry's backup bondgirls, are they? Further, the difference in poses on that cover, of presentation and characterization, if it's not misleading are still suspect.

The cover exaggerates Tigra's importance to the comic inside at the same time that it de-emphasizes Widow's importance; Widow is spotlighted rather quickly as a potential leader figure within the team which will probably put her at odds with the official leader, Ms. Marvel. Sentry, meanwhile, is central to the image but isn't particularly important to the text - he stays behind to fight Ultron while the others retreat, sure, but that's about it.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:27 / 23.05.07
I'm torn between wanting to disagree and feeling that if I spend time arguing in detail about the placement and pose of characters on a cover related to their role inside the issue, I will have lost an important part of my soul.

In the meantime: Adam Hughes is an idiot who thinks his statue was okay since Mary-Jane is a "bimbo", and who doesn't understand why he can't say "the n-word" when teh African-Americans are allowed.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
15:37 / 23.05.07
Mary Jane is a bit of a bimbo. She’s been a supermodel and a dancer, an actress and a model…so I gave her a cute, sexy moment.

...So apparently, if you're an actress, a dancer, a model (and a supermodel?) you're automatically a bimbo. I wasn't aware of that.

Well, she’s bending over. Pin-up girls do that. But by that argument – if we take bending over to be a sign of sexual availability, every woman who bends over to pick up something should be chastised, while any woman who eats an ice cream cone or banana in public should have it smacked out of their hand because it’s far too suggestive, and people will be hurt if they see it.

I'm perplexed by this statement, because it seems to say that all bending over is the same sort of bending over with the same motivation and body language attached it. I don't think I've ever met a woman who bends over *like that statue*. Statue MJ looks like she has some sort of a major spinal cord trauma going on. It's a stupid argument for him to make against people complaining about MJ bending over because of the context and anatomical weirdness involved.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
16:11 / 23.05.07
It's just hard to know where to start with all the nonsense in that interview. It almost makes you feel you shouldn't bother. One thing that stands out for me is what a misconceived and poorly-executed maquette it is, just on the simplest terms of comic-book plausibility (and those are pretty flexible rules of plausibility). MJ is not doing the laundry, but sorting through the laundry before she puts it in the washing machine ~ so she's got some white bucket on the table, and she discovers Peter is Spidey because he's somehow just forgotten and put the top half of his outfit in this tiny white laundry bucket, and her response when discovering he's a costumed hero is not to freak out but to give some coquettish "ooh, what's this" over her shoulder. And she sorts thru the laundry bucket with a bottle of detergent sitting on the floor.

After all, if you’ve been collecting comics for any length of time, you’ve seen worse – you’ve probably even seen worse with the aforementioned Mary Jane Watson.

I think this is the "well, they churn out cheesecake every month, so why complain now?" argument.

I found it almost most amusing that the linked website mocks NBC for calling in real-life superhero Feedback, "a costumed adult as some kind of “expert.”"

As if people who read Spider-Man regularly are in a position to ridicule the idea of a costumed adult?
 
 
Ticker
16:21 / 23.05.07
the designer says:

AH: Well, that’s how I end up looking at this – is it really a sexist or misogynistic act if it wasn’t intended that way on the part of the people doing it? If you perceive something that way, but it wasn’t meant to be that way, and it’s not sending people back to the stone age, is it really a sexist or misogynistic thing that’s going on, or are you seeing something that’s either not there, or that the artist never intended to be there?

but he earlier stated in the same article:

Mary Jane is a bit of a bimbo. She’s been a supermodel and a dancer, an actress and a model…so I gave her a cute, sexy moment.

So am I being reasonable here that he is saying a person who is as supermodel and a dancer, an actress and a model is a bimbo and therefore he is portraying her accurately from his perception?

I would say equating a supermodel and a dancer, an actress and a model with a bimbo is misogynistic.

A bimbo is not necessarily highly sexually attractive. Being a bimbo is a state of mind, and reflects a person who exaggerates the effort and value put into her physical attractiveness. She is often perceived to be shallowly focusing on her physical appearance and neglecting or even willfully stifling the development of other parts of her personality."
 
 
miss wonderstarr
16:40 / 23.05.07
The interview is incredibly mixed-up, sad and contradictory; I almost felt sorry for the guy when he started rambling about how it wasn't fair he couldn't use "the n-word" in its full, uncensored form.

I suspect the very concept of a "bimbo" is problematic, rather than its application to dancers and models being an issue. Surely it's based around a stereotype that a woman who looks a certain way (a certain type of hair, outfit, grooming, physique) is air-headed and good for nothing except, I don't know, arm-candy and fucking? It's no doubt tied to an equally stupid stereotype about what an intelligent woman looks like, by contrast.
 
 
This Sunday
16:52 / 23.05.07
The all women who bend over and it’s not sending people back to the stone age are just killing arguments, really.

I like that he has 'intent' (which is infallible because he is artist!), but everyone else, just 'perceptions' and he's not responsible for those perceptions. Because, really, no artist should ever have to worry about or consider how people are likely to interpret their work. Their work of communication.

Does, 'I do take this seriously, but in my opinion, it’s a non-issue' make any sense to anybody not named Adam Hughes? Can we all steal this magic get out of jail free card?

But he has a point. 'If we were back to three networks with only morning and evening news, I’m thinking this wouldn’t have passed muster for a news story.' is probably true, if he means 'if we were back to the time when...' Which, really, only suggests to me he could use a new calendar. One that starts the year off with a two and has at least three digits following.
 
 
Blake Head
17:21 / 23.05.07
I believe the conclusion, however optimistic, that “we’re flirting with self-awareness” is a clue to the level of sense we can expect from the artist – sad and confused is about right I think.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
20:02 / 23.05.07
It's time like this that make me feel Valerie Solanas was too forgiving...
 
 
The Falcon
20:32 / 23.05.07
In the end though, Dirk Deppey has more sensible things to say about that maquette than any other commentator. Oh, and the Heroes for Hire cover was drawn by a woman.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
20:47 / 23.05.07
The blog entry you link to (indirectly! I had to search) about the MJ statuette seems to conclude

Given the astonishing number of truly risable images, characters and stories out there in the Direct Market, seizing upon a harmless bit of cheesecake like this only reinforces the notion that there’s no way to win against such complaints

I don't really understand that argument.
 
 
This Sunday
21:01 / 23.05.07
The link to Lea Hernandez's comments/letter regarding that Heroes for Hire cover was nice and helpful. She laid it out pretty good, I thought.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:38 / 23.05.07
What a confused, defensive, pointless piece of mither that Deppey piece was.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
05:02 / 24.05.07
So it seems one argument runs as follows: that it's not worth concentrating on the MJ statuette because there are worse examples of sexist imagery in mainstream comics.

However, I think it'd be interesting if this specific MJ model led to a more widespread awareness and a wider-ranging discussion of that imagery. I wouldn't have been aware of the tentacle-sex or the Avengers cover, without this news story; and I'm far more of a comics fan than most people. Perhaps this news story will bring that broader issue about gendered representation in general within contemporary superhero comics into the public eye.

If the MJ statuette isn't atypical ~ if it's in fact representative of how women are generally portrayed in mainstream comics ~ that's all the more reason for further examination.
 
 
Mug Chum
06:21 / 24.05.07
Well, I believe MJ reached the NY Post already.

Even if these companies changed themselves, It will still be hard not to hold them (and their marketing department) as folks reaching unbelievable new grounds of frank stupidity. I hope they dont expect anyone to slap them on the back if they suddenly (and tardly) realized their foot has about 100 bullets lodged in it and decide it's time for a new approach...
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
23:15 / 24.05.07
I like this one better than the previous "flipped tables" spider-thong.

By J. Bone, currently seen inking Darwyn Cooke's Will Eisner's The Spirit.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
23:17 / 24.05.07
...although the comments on the entry are rather distressing. SIGH.
 
 
Lugue
23:33 / 24.05.07
Compared to the general tone of "you PMS bitches" in other spots, they seem rather harmless to me, Papers.
 
 
This Sunday
23:44 / 24.05.07
I like this one better, too. I'm more than mildly in love with the background MJ with her drink and grin - that's the sort of communications-awareness I don't see Adam Hughes as even addressing in the above-linked interview. I do wish somebody'd do one where Spidey's expression matched the comiquette-thingy's. It just means something different to me when the subject is clearly displeased.

I don't read enough witty people's blogs. This was a good one, and so's the Living Between Wednesdays linked as the inspiration for the Pakers piece.
 
  

Page: 12(3)45678

 
  
Add Your Reply