Spider-Woman's Big Ass is a Big Deal!

[jamzrockz]

This is a video about the controversy surrounding the new spider woman comic cover. I think the topic has more to do with women's issues and the portrayal of women in entertainment than just it being a showbiz commentary.

So if the mods considers it to be just showbiz, then give me a heads up and I will take it down myself. No need to alert this post

[NYC_SKP]

1. Here's the male version, 1999 Spiderman #30:

[jamzrockz]

3. That is one uncomfortable pose

for any being to be in. But if nobody complained when they put spider man in it, nobody should complain when they put spider woman in virtually the same pose. Thanks for posting the picture. I never really into spider man, I always liked my super heroes to have real powers like Batman.

[jberryhill]

5. He's part spider

Spiderman and Spiderwoman pose in insect-like postures because they have been infused with spider characteristics, having been bitten by radioactive spiders.

[SunSeeker]

8. It is not the same pose. Spiderwoman's ass is featured WAY more prominently and much higher.

Spiderman's butt is almost level with his legs. Her butt is up in the air well above the rest of body, and emphasized with the almost gynecological detail of her back dimples, etc., unlike the Spiderman drawing. She appears naked and displaying her butt. He simply appears to be crouching low, like a spider.

[Veilex]

14. While not identical, the pose is the same.

And, I agree with the speaker... this culture needs to stop hyper-sexualizing everything. But, that's my opinion.

[SunSeeker]

15. If it is "not identical" then by definition it is not the same.

Last edited Sun Sep 7, 2014, 03:38 AM - Edit history (1)

The two poses are not even similar. Her knees are close to her body in a cat-like crouch with her butt high above her body. It is a pretty standard "back door" porn pose. Spiderman is depicted with a much more muscular physique and a much more powerful stance. His butt is at the same level as his left thigh --his butt is not perched high and is much smaller proportionally to his body. It is simply not accentuated like hers. He is in a powerful spider crouch; she is in a feline porn pose.

He's drawn as a superhero. She's drawn as cheesecake.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

25. Actually, he's drawn as a beefcake.

[SunSeeker]

30. No, he's drawn as a superhero.

This is beefcake:

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. ...

[Veilex]

69. "If it is "not the same" then by definition it is not identical."

That's a jumbling of my wording, and so, your argument fails since it tries to re-phrase my words to fit your narrative.

"The two poses are not even similar." - They most certainly are indeed. You've merely chosen to use a form of measurement that disproportionally favors your argument instead of something far more realistic. Not only are they very similar, but the musculature is heavily emphasized on both... though arguably more so on the male version.

"Her knees are close to her body in a cat-like crouch" - Ummm... are we even looking at the same artwork? She's clearly assuming a very spider-esk posture... there is nothing even remotely "cat-like" about it at all. I can only assume you're not an artist, or you'd have noticed rather quickly that for her knees to be "close to her body in a cat-like crouch" she'd have to be folding space in some spacing-guild fashion as she is clearly scaling, and coming over the top of, a building. Her right knee disappears behind the building, and her left leg and hips are clearly canted in such a manner as to traverse over that top edge (if you've ever scaled up and over a fence or up the side of a building to the top, you'd probably know this as well)

Sorry, but I don't buy into your skewing. The representations of spiderman and spiderwoman respectively represent a fantasy-super-hero-esk body type.

Instead of acknowledging that the male Spiderman would be, by your definition, sexualized.. you've chosen to be hyper critical of JUST the female art... how "gender equality" of you (note the sarcasm). This is the very definition of sexism and is also baiting on your part.

[SunSeeker]

76. Oh please. Milo Manara repurposed his porn poster from Click.

For the exact same Milo Manara "up-in-the-air-voyeurs-please-do-me" butt, click here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Manara#mediaviewer/File:ManaraClic.gif

I recommend you read down the thread.

You confuse sex with sexism. You can have a sexy, muscular Spiderwoman superhero, without portraying women in a degrading manner. Like this:

[Veilex]

81. You can have a sexy, muscular Spiderwoman superhero without portraying women in a degrading manner.

It sure is a good thing we have you to moderate for the rest of us what "sexy" is... cause, ya know, having the church, politicians, and the media all tell us what to think and feel just wasn't quite enough...

[SunSeeker]

95. I am not telling you what to think. I am pointing out a fact. nt

[DavidG_WI]

225. Still the same pose

From different angles, as promised, your Spiderman-ass.

[SunSeeker]

228. Nope. In none of those is he swaybacked and his butt turned up, anus exposed.

In none of those is his butt featured prominently as the highest point on his body.

[Ash_F]

17. ..

[SunSeeker]

18. Her legs are well below her butt. His legs are even with his butt.

I can understand why you can’t articulate an argument...

[Ash_F]

19. You seem angry.

Meanwhile, I'm on google image search, appreciating spiderman in whole new way





ps - the last one is my favorite.

[SunSeeker]

22. So you resort to the standard sexist attack line: "You seem angry."

Disagreeing with you does not make a woman irrational or angry. Judging by the opinions you appear to hold, it probably just means she is right.

In none of the pictures you offer is Spiderman's butt featured prominently. The last one, your "favorite," has his leg and foot in front of his butt, and his foot is higher than his butt. In none of those is Spiderman's butt the highest point on his body, nor is it exposed and in essence offered up on display. Contrast that with the picture of Spiderwoman, with her butt drawn at least three times the size of Spiderman's butt, while the rest of her is supermodel thin, with little muscle. Alas, drawing women this way is all too common in superhero cartoons. The cartoonists appear to assume their audience consists of 13 year olds, or men who think like 13 year olds.

[Ash_F]

41. Nah, not buying it.

I think you are right about her lack of muscle, and noticed that myself. Though early Spiderman was not muscular.

Do you read comics?

ps - I had no way of knowing if you were m/f, so I don't know where the 'sexist' comment is coming from.

[jamzrockz]

46. why oh why

did they redo the black widow's pose? She is a female in both posters. The original shows you how the comic artists would portray a female superhero and the hawkeye effect artists just drew what they thought a comic artist would have drawn a female superhero. The only problem is that we can see from the original that they got it wrong.

[flying rabbit]

61. Women tend to have bigger butts

Maybe that is why it is more prominent. Both Spiderman and Spiderwoman are drawn to an "ideal" standard.

[SunSeeker]

64. Not when they're supermodel thin, like the rest of her is drawn.

This cartoonist drew the standard PORN ideal of a woman, skinny arms and legs, large T & A. That is NOT the ideal standard of a woman.

If she is a superhero, why didn't he draw her more muscular? Why did she not at least have the muscles of a Serena Williams or Abby Wombach? And the butt the cartoonist gave Spiderwomen was not a muscular, athletic woman's butt, but a porn butt. Why didn't he give her a Flo Jo butt?

And why is her butt raised high up in the air, higher than any other part of her body? What's with the swayback? Have you ever tried doing anything while holding your back in a porn swayback pose? It's impossible. It is also degrading. Why couldn't he make her look powerful and dignified?

The dude did not draw a superhero. He drew a porn star geared to meet the online porn fueled fantasies of 13 year old boys and men who think like 13 year old boys.

Female comic book fans deserve better. Women deserve better.

[Veilex]

70. "That is NOT the ideal standard of a woman."

Ahhh... but you don't get to make that determination.
The artist does.
That you disagree is immaterial.
Only the artist's perception matters with regard to what is "the ideal standard of a woman".
That's the nature of art.

[SunSeeker]

73. The poster I was responding to said that was the ideal, not the artist.

The poster suggested there is an ideal standard for a woman. If there is, it's not a porn star.

And it is not just the artist's perception that matters. Art can be racist, sexist bigoted crap. Just because it is someone's "art" does not make it "ideal."

[Veilex]

75. So you think this artwork is "sexist bigoted crap" but you have no problem with other spiderman art?

How duplicitous of you.

Glad to see you're all about equality and fairness.

[SunSeeker]

77. I can discern the difference between sexy and sexist.

Apparently you can't.

[flying rabbit]

79. What is the difference between sexy and sexist?

You seem to be the authority.

[SunSeeker]

109. Look the words up in the dictionary. nt

[Veilex]

115. "I can discern the difference between sexy and sexist"

But apparently she cant tell you what it is...

[Veilex]

82. Oh yes, I forget, you are arbiter of right and wrong...

So, Spiderman = sexy and Spiderwoman = sexist... noooooo that's not sexist at all...

[Veilex]

84. And since we're looking into the definition of the two words, let me google that for you:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=definition+of+Sexism

Now, if we're going by definition, the closest you'll get to Sexism with this image is with stereotyping.
However, if you're going to go that rout, you better bring your umbrage up against portrayal of Spiderman as well.
Otherwise, you're being duplicitous and sexist.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=definition+of+Sexy
As to Sexy... I think you'll have a hard time forcing people to conform to your notion of what is attractive or exciting.
More pointedly, if you try, you're no better than any other group trying to force their views on anyone else.

[SunSeeker]

93. I'm not telling anyone what they should find sexy. I am just pointing out sexism.

Last edited Sun Sep 7, 2014, 02:42 AM - Edit history (1)

If you find sexist depictions of women sexy, that's your business.

[Veilex]

96. "If you find sexist depictions of women sexy, that's you're business. "

Riiiight... keep hitting that punch line. Keep ignoring everything but your mantra: Spiderwomen = Sexism... Spiderman = Sexy.

Duplicitous to the last.

[SunSeeker]

100. Nope, Spiderwoman does not "equal sexism." But the Milo Manara version is sexist.

I have posted a Spiderwoman cover in this thread that did not portray her as a porn star and that is not sexist.

You seem to like that word "duplicitous."

[flying rabbit]

112. I think you are just looking for something to be outraged about.

this is weak sauce.
[IMG][/IMG]
I can do memes too.

[Veilex]

116. Indeed

[SunSeeker]

124. Not at all. I clicked on the OP expecting to agree with it.

I come here not to argue with people who diasgree with me, but to enjoy the company of and learn from fellow progressives in a rightwing free and safe environment. I was browsing through the DU homepage and saw a thumbnail in the video column showing only big red women’s butt cheeks spread open as if for penetration, with the words "Double Standard" written over them. I thought it was a post about the disparate, degrading treatment of women in the media, with that cartoon ass being an example.

I was disappointed to see it was a rant complaining about just the opposite. The dude ridiculed people who object to the Milo Marana Spiderwoman cover because they do not object to a Spiderman cover that this very disingenuous and/or blind narrator claims is the same. When I point out that the two covers are not the same, and explained why, I get attacked and called a sexist. I see outrageous posts saying feminists cause sex crimes and that the only reason feminists object to that Spiderwoman cover is because they don't want men enjoying the female form. Seriously, this thread could be on Free Republic. I haven't even heard Rush Limbaugh say such crazy shit about feminists.

The person you jumped in to support insists that because I don't see the Spiderman cover as sexist, then I am sexist. Yet he refused to articulate why the Spiderman cover is sexist. Then he put me on ignore and refused to correspond further. Since you appear to agree with him, can you explain to me what is sexist about the Spiderman cover?

[Veilex]

113. When you focus your outrage on an exceptionally small segment of comic books

and completely ignore anything else that doesn't fit your narrative, then are befitting the very definition of a duplicitous nature.
I believe in calling a spade a spade... just as I believe in protecting all human rights...not just the ones that are convenient for me.

You, however, not only fail to understand the definition of no less than three words on thread, but are showing a clear and present double standard, and therefore are being duplicitous... Which, incidentally, has you also being quite sexist. You don't have to like the word duplicitous... but in this case, the shoe fits, so you get to wear it.

[SunSeeker]

122. Please look up "duplicitous" in Webster's.

It means dishonest. I have given you my honest opinion. Just because you disagree with it does not make me dishonest.

I am not holding Spiderman to a double standard. On the the contrary, I want Spiderman and Spiderwoman drawn by the same standard: as strong, dignified superheroes.

I am not "focusing my outrage" on a stupid Milo Manara depiction of Spiderwoman. Chill, dude. I was just commenting on a thread. I had never seen that Manara cover until I saw the OP. And then you jumped in attacking my comments and calling me a sexist. Hence our lovely ongoing conversation.

I think the most outrageous thing on this thread is your assertion that feminists cause sex crimes. Although, I have to give runner up props to the poster who opined that feminists object to the Manara Spiderwoman because they don't like any depiction of women that arouses straight men. I don't think even Rush Limbaugh has said anything that stupid.

[SunSeeker]

133. "It's pretty sad to see so-called adults arguing over such ridiculous things"

Then why are you arguing over it?

I didn't post the OP.

Why are you so bothered by me commenting on the degrading way Spiderwoman is portrayed to these 13 year olds?

[DavidG_WI]

183. Becasue they are SUPER HEREOS,

She doesn't have a single gram of fat anywhere but their breasts. No, it's not a porn pose, it's an impossible one, as many artists have already pointed out, the neck does not work that way.

As super human characters neither one is properly proportioned, in the odd characters that are super powered yet are fat like The Blob or Big Bertha they are instead incredibly morbidly obese far beyond what any human could be and still be mobile yet they are incredibly fast and strong.

The only normal people you are going to find in a comic book are the people that are actually normal in a comic book, I.E. no powers, no super agent skills etc. just a normal person will have normal proportions.

[SunSeeker]

187. I don't expect a superhero to look normal. But why can't she look strong like Spiderman?

Spiderwoman used to look strong, like she did in an earlier Spiderwoman cover I posted in this thread. But it appears women comics have been turned into porn stars over the last decade. Don't you get enough of this crap in actual porn? Why does it have to invade kids' comics?

[DavidG_WI]

194. Because she's not She-Hulk

As a yet anotherspiderclone based character she is supposed to be small. Spiderman is by no means strong looking compared to the average superhero build, because that would detract from what he is supposed to be, if he was as huge as the hulk he couldn't be as flexible, agile and fast, because spiderman, while very strong, with some writers maxing him out as capable of lifting 20 tons and moving at 600MPH he doesn't need that level of ability. The point is that Spiderman doesn't get hit, like ever. And when he can't out power his opponents he's always able to outwit them. He was incredibly shocked with himself when he managed to stun The Thing(the stone man from Fantastic 4), one of the physically strongest characters in Marvel's roster with a punch to the face.

Much of the same follows for Spiderwoman, I've already posted her powers list, she's actually far more powerful then Spiderman, but the only thing that holds her back is that she is supposed to be ashamed of her past of having worked for the Nazi affiliated HYDRA against the Avengers who she ended up working for.

As for the last decade? You're kidding right? Sexualized main stream comic book characters go back to the 60's at least, I'm sure someone far more comic inclined then I can provide you with examples, as I've only just in the last year started reading comics again after not reading them much as a kid and having stopped completely by age 13. I only started again because a buddy of mine brought over the complete Marvel Civil War and a list of what order to read them all in saying I'd like the story, he was right and now I've also started reading the stories it leads into like the Dark series, X-Men Uopia, Fear Itself etc..

[SunSeeker]

195. Not Hulk huge, but strong like Spiderman.

Why can't she have arms that are at least as ripped as Michele Obama's? What's with the skinny noodles for arms and legs? Spiderwoman used to be drawn with a lot more muscle, and yes she looked sexy. I have no problem with that. In fact, I think it looks great. What I object to is the Milo Marana Spiderwoman, in the supine porn pose, looking like nothing more than splayed porn meat.

[DavidG_WI]

203. No she didn't.

And the bod type changes somewhat between artists, go read a crossover event like the ones I posted about earlier, you can find them on TPB if you like, since the same characters are crossing over multiple individual series of comics in one massive intertwined story with 100+ issues in total and each line has it's own artist drawing for it you'll see the same characters drown differently by 10 different artists if you read all of it because characters that have their own series will have issues covering the same events, meetings and conversations from slightly different perspectives due to the different artists and writers.

[Ash_F]

68. I would kill for spiderman's definition

KILL

[flying rabbit]

80. I know

The fucker's cut.

[7962]

128. Women have more pronounced rear ends than men. Thats life.

[SunSeeker]

132. The way Spiderwoman is drawn does not reflect real life.

Her butt is not merely "prominent" but several times the size of Spiderman's in proportion to the rest of her, which is drawn supermodel thin. A real woman that thin does not have a butt bigger than a man's, especially if she is athletically built like a superhero is supposed to be.

[7962]

138. Of course they do. Look at female tennis players, volleyball, MMA, ect.

The athletic women all have a very well shaped rear. Especially volleyball and surfers. The men do too, but not as much as the women. Of course, I'm a guy, so maybe its just me. Much ado about nothing, since the guy spiderman is in pretty much the same pose. Maybe she was bitten by a different spider?

[SunSeeker]

162. No, Spiderman is not in "pretty much the same pose."

He is not swaybacked, his butt is not well above the rest of his body, his butt cheeks are not spread up at the sky as if for penetration. He is crouching like a spider; his thighs out parallel to his butt, which is not turned up but rather down.

Athletic women’s butts are all muscle and are proportional to their equally muscular bodies, like Serena's. This Spiderwoman, who is supposed to be a superhero, is drawn with the skinny arms and legs of a supermodel, almost no muscle mass. And yet she has a butt three times the size of Spiderman's when you superimpose their bodies. She was drawn as a vehicle to showcase T&A, not as a superhero.

[DavidG_WI]

191. No muscle mass...

yet able to lift a car, heres a list of her current iteration's powers and abilities as there has been more then one Spiderwoman:
Superhuman strength, speed, agility, sight, hearing and sense of smell
Flight
Trained as a spy and assassin by HYDRA and S.W.O.R.D. which included training in boxing, judo, karate, capoeira, fencing etc.
Fear-inducing pheromone generation
Adheres to walls through bio-electric attraction
Shoots beams of bio-electric energy from her hands capable of cutting steel or rendering targets unconscious
Resistance to all poisons and radiations

So yeah, she's not the helpless waif you make her out to be

[SunSeeker]

192. I didn't make her out as a helpless waif. Milo Marana did.

He put her in a submissive rear penetration porn pose, her butt cheeks spread open and raised up, drawn to gynecological detail. On a comic book. For kids.

It is the exact same splayed woman, less Spiderwoman skin paint, that Marana did in this prior poster, where he creepily also had a town's square full of learing voyeurs:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Manara#mediaviewer/File:ManaraClic.gif

[samsingh]

152. it's a comic book right? is there not supposed to be creative expression?

[SunSeeker]

159. Of course. And am I not allowed to comment when that expression is offensive? nt

[samsingh]

177. and i'm offended when there is to much offense taken.

[SunSeeker]

178. Why? nt

[Gormy Cuss]

7. Calling that the "exact same pose" as the person in the OP video does is inaccurate.

In the above Spidey pose, he seems to be hugging a ball of web, thighs to the surface. The controversial Spiderwoman pose has her ass high in the air for no apparent reason. Not to mention, that Spiderwoman seems lacking developed muscles like most superheroes. She's eye candy.

[SunSeeker]

10. Exactly. I just posted pretty much the same comment before seeing yours. nt

[Eleanors38]

107. Maybe she has gas.

[Gormy Cuss]

171. Maybe she has Manara.

[TheVisitor]

153. My opinion is...

that women are over-sexualized. This creates the problem of a woman not feeling free to be herself, and constantly having to be acutely aware of her body posture, and pretty much feel quite awkward. In all honesty, a woman has a right to be in any position she desires, and to not feel demonized/blamed for other people sexualizing it. By regulating which positions a woman can be portrayed in that are "acceptable", it is actually breeding more sexual hostility toward women. So, I kind of see people who have a problem with this to be quite sexist in a way.

Yes, men and women's bodies are shaped differently. That is a fact. Spider man is built like no natural human being, and neither is Spider woman. In this case, I find there isn't really any discrimination happening. I happen to see standards set toward both sexes which are equally unattainable.

I like how he pointed out if Spider woman would have been drawn with her legs open like Spider man in that one image, that there would've been a huge uproar. I agree there would've been an uproar, but I disagree with the base premise of an uproar that would occur. Part of the reason women are over-sexualized is because they are taught that only certain postures and ways of carrying their bodies are "acceptable". This causes otherwise natural poses to be construed as unnatural, taboo, or even sexual.

To me, Spider woman looks like she's too focused on doing her own thing to care if someone is trying to check out her ass. That's the way it should be.

Now, how many men have felt uncomfortable bending over to pick something up?

I have a feeling much more women feel much more uncomfortable bending over to pick something up.

It's because the male is taught to pick up the object, and the female is taught how to "act" while she picks up the object.
Why? It's not her fault that people are being overly-sexual. It's the person who is over-sexualizing her that is at fault. It is society who is at fault for constantly ingraining into people that a woman bending over always equals sexual innuendo.

Overall, I think women would be better off just not giving a rat's ass about what other people think of them. I know this world is not attacker free, sexual deviant free, or pervert free... but why should women ever change their behavior to suit the desires of someone else? That in itself is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe if we all cut the crap, and just accepted people for who they are without intense judgement: we wouldn't have to deal with ridiculousness like this.

I look forward to the day when nude people can be on the cover of a magazines and there isn't an uproar about it being "sexual".
Nudity is natural, and not always sexual. Even if it is sexual, it's not really such a bad thing... Society is warped and the only unnatural thing about any of this.

[NYC_SKP]

154. In searching for that one cover image, I looked over hundreds of others.

Spider man is depicted in all manner of positions, many of the appropriate for any number of kinky sexual activities.

I largely agree with your observations.

We are a product of our culture, and we'd be better off if we weren't so body-aware and offended by nudism and naturalism as we are.

[SunSeeker]

168. No one is regulating positions. We're just objecting to the degrading depiction.

Are you actually suggesting that objecting to degrading portrayals of women will result in "actually breeding more sexual hostility toward women"? Why?

Ignoring degrading portrayals of women by men will not make it go away.

This is a standard porn anal penetration shot. Milo Manara copied it from another poster he did, in which he has also creepily added voyeurs ogling her splayed butt cheeks.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Manara#mediaviewer/File:ManaraClic.gif

Hey, if that is what some men like to look at while fapping, that is their business. But I am talking about how a female superhero is portrayed in a comic book sold to 13 year olds, 47% of whom are female, according to the video's narrator.

Why can't she be shown strong, like Spiderman? Why is her body thin and not muscular? Why is she swaybacked and her butt cheeks spread to the sky? She cannot do anything in that position but be penetrated. What kind of message does this send? I am not objecting to nudity or sex, I am objecting to a depiction that devalues women.

This is not the same pose as the Spiderman. He is crawling like a spider. His thighs are even with his butt. His butt is not turned up. He is not swaybacked. His head is not down. He looks powerful. She looks like a porn star, not a superhero. It is not "sexist" to point that out.

[TheVisitor]

175. Agree to disagree...

I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I just don't think that being upset about her butt being in the air is going to resolve anything.

My stance is simply that: I agree with the guy in the video because I don't see it as sexual. I think it looks ridiculous and quite unnatural, but I don't find it sexual on a personal level. I don't find it sexual when women bend down in front of me and pick things up, either, however... and some people seem to find this sexual. Most people seem to be oversexual, in my opinion. Do I think other people interpret this image to be sexual? Well, yes, some will inevitably do that... but my point was just that I doubt Spider woman would care, seeing as she is assumed to be quite the bad-ass, that she'll be too preoccupied doing things that matter to worry about silly little boys worried about how her butt looks in her painted on costume.

Now, I definitely agree that she deserves to have some more muscles, for sure!! Women are definitely more muscular than what this image portrays in real life - and she definitely needs more muscle tone, especially for a woman who is bitten by radioactive, super-power giving... spider... I mean, look at Spider man - he's ripped! She definitely could use some killer biceps and some legs of steel. I think she'd be cool with a little more muscle neck flex going on too.

Anyway, you made some very valid points I hadn't considered. Thanks for your response.

[Veilex]

262. +1

[Spitfire of ATJ]

2. Billo is a vagina...

[Grassy Knoll]

13. That was too funny

[Veilex]

71. Yeah...

I guffawed

[jberryhill]

4. Achilles would make quick work of these philistines

Superheroes have been portrayed this way for thousands of years.

[SunSeeker]

39. Neither of those statues show men swaybacked with their butts in the air.

Nudity does not mean degrading. It is how the nude is posed. In Spiderwomen's case, the cartoonist drew and posed her in a degrading manner.

[Veilex]

72. The only thing degrading about Sipderwoman's pose

is your sexulization of her in that pose.

[SunSeeker]

78. No, it was Milo Manara who turned Spiderwoman into porn meat.

I didn't "sexualize" her into anything.

Geez. It's like claiming an African American who objects to Sambo cartoons is "racializing" Sambo.

[Veilex]

83. "I didn't sexualize her"

This is exactly what you did. The proof is in the way you're quick to point to the artwork and scream "See! See! Its bad", but completely ignore the same (or similar) poses for Spiderman... so, either you're operating under a double standard, cause I haven't seen you say word one about Spiderman, or you're just trying to stir the pot, and are doing what the GOP does to Obama: search for any and all possible reasons to scream foul, no matter how remote. Either way, you're being sexist.

[SunSeeker]

87. I am not ignoring anything. The Spiderman pose is not same nor similar to the Spiderwoman pose.

His back is not swaybacked and his butt cheeks are not perched up in the air higher than any other point on his body, rendering him physically helpless. His body has muscle, he looks strong. She does not.

It is exactly the disparate treatment of male and female subjects that I am objecting to. Female superheroes should be drawn to look strong and dignified, like male superheroes, not drawn to look like a porn stars.

I am not screaming. You're projecting. I am not being sexist. I am pointing out sexism. That is not being sexist.

[Veilex]

90. "I am not ignoring anything."

Yes you are... the very first thing you do in reply to my post, isn't to say "yeah, he shouldn't be posed in those manners either",
its to say: nu uhhhhh! Its totally different!

"It is exactly the disparate treatment" - that you're supporting through your duplicitous stance.

"I am not being sexist" - Yes you are... you absolutely are.

And you're refusing to acknowledge it because you won't listen.

[SunSeeker]

92. "And you're refusing to acknowledge it because you won't listen."

Again, more projecting.

[Veilex]

98. "Again, more projecting. " Hardly...

This is a deflection on your part.

I'm not the one ignoring one form of sexism to point at another.

If you actually cared about sexism, you'd attack it all instead of just the portion that doesn't appeal to you.

[SunSeeker]

101. You think the way Spiderman is portrayed is sexist? nt

[Veilex]

102. You think the way Spiderman is portrayed isn't sexist? nt

[SunSeeker]

104. Not in any of the comics on this thread. Do you? nt

[Veilex]

114. "Not in any of the comics on this thread"

Yeah, didn't think you would. This is exactly why you're in the wrong.
I'm done with your sexism... this conversation is over.

[SunSeeker]

119. Please cite a post in this thread that shows Spiderman drawn in a sexist way. nt

[Xipe Totec]

6. The thumping music in the background was annoying

It distracted from the valid points the guy was making in the video.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

21. I thought that was the headboard in the next room.

[Xipe Totec]

56. Snort!

[Journeyman]

9. Excellent piece. . .

thanks for posting.

[SansACause]

11. The artist is the legendary Milo Manara.

He is well known for his erotic art, and is considered a comic art master. They wouldn't have hired him to draw the cover if they didn't mean it to be risque. After all, comics in the US are primarily targeted to adolescent boys. Scarlet Johansson wearing that tight suit in The Avengers movie was pretty much for the same reason.

[Warpy]

33. Milo is in desperate need of anatomy classes

If he bothered going to art school, he obviously skipped them or slept through them.

[SansACause]

62. He's just copying himself

From his Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Manara#mediaviewer/File:ManaraClic.gif

[Veilex]

85. Copying past artwork is an exceedingly common practice...

Especially in comic books. It saves considerable time.

[Veilex]

74. The interesting thing here is that our culture, thanks largely to the catholic church...

Puts such a huge taboo around sex... as if it were something that we should all be embarrassed about.

Every time I see a Feminist decry pornography or risqué imagery, I want to ask if those feminists are enjoying the morals that have been bequeathed to them from the very same church that wants to deny them control over their own bodies. Its truly mind boggling. Its like anything that embraces or enjoys sexuality is demonized as somehow being bad... never mind that its literally part of our being and a completely natural component of our humanity... but the church doesn't like it, so we must adopt their morals... uhhh, huh?

Here's the thing; appreciation for the female form will never stop... nor should it. Appreciation of the human form is natural and healthy... what is not healthy, is turning it into some form of hush-hush taboo.

Because of the way we treat sex in the US, we literally have higher sex-crime here, than anywhere else in the world. Why is that? Well, there is a direct correlation to sexual repression and sex crime. As repression goes up, so does sex crime. They are virtually linked.

Demonizing this representation of Spiderwoman as "sexualized" should be a non issue in the same way the sexualization of Spiderman has been deemed a non issue... both because we should not be demonizing sexuality, and because of the hypocrisy of it.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/201004/sexual-repression-the-malady-considers-itself-the-remedy

[SunSeeker]

111. Feminists are not causing sex crimes.

See my post #65. Feminists are not demonizing sex. Your link does not support those assertions. It does not even mention feminists.

Of course people will always enjoy the human form. And should. And yes, liking the human body is natural. But the women in Milo Manara's drawings are not natural in any sense of the word.

Feminists object to the Manara Spiderwoman because he does not give her the same strength and dignity that Spiderman gets.

Nor does your cite article state there is a direct correlation to sexual repression and sex crime.  Rape is about hate and power, not sex. It is not caused by uncontrollable sexuality urges.
http://m.sapac.umich.edu/article/52

Please educate yourself.

But you are right that churches play a role in rape culture. A culture in which women are expected to remain virgins until marriage is a rape culture. In that vision, women’s bodies are for use primarily for procreation or male pleasure.

http://prospect.org/article/purity-culture-rape-culture

And if there is anything that Milo Manara's portrayal of women says, it's that women exist to sexually service men. Not to be heroes, super or otherwise.

[Veilex]

117. Umm...

Anyone who supports respresion of sexuality is indeed a contributor to sex crimes.
I will dial back my prior post a bit in that it is not directed at Feminists as a group... but individuals who frequently comprise feminist groups... and those who don't.


"Nor does your cite article state there is a direct correlation to sexual repression and sex crime"

First sentence:

Nothing inspires murderous mayhem in human beings more reliably than sexual repression.

- It doesn't huh? Lets continue:

Third sentence:

But if expression of sexuality is thwarted, the human psyche tends to grow twisted into grotesque, enraged perversions of desire.

- I'm guessing, by your oddly constructed definition, this also doesn't show a correlation between sexual repression and sex crime?

There's little question that the centuries-long campaign of child rape enabled by institutional cover-up is a direct result of the Church's inhumane teachings concerning human sexuality. If priests—gay, straight, and bi-sexual—were allowed to form erotic connections with consenting adults, who can doubt that countless children would have been spared outrageous torture at the hands of these sick, distorted men?

Hmm... so you're able to construe the Spiderwoman alternate cover as sexism, but through some contortion of logic that would make even M.C. Escher flinch, not any of the standard Spiderman covers... and you're unable to locate any correlation between sexual repression and sex crime within the article I linked? None at all? I'm in utter awe of your total and complete willful blindness... and you have the gall to tell me to "educate" myself? You have proven yourself a sexist time and again. You declared, you saw NO sexism on the comics on this thread... NONE!!! All you can see is how you think you are personally being aggrieved, and are plainly refusing to consider how anyone not-you might also be offended. You are failing to think past the end of your own nose.
I am so beyond done with you.

[SunSeeker]

118. Dude, you keep saying you're "done" but you keep posting.

Rape is about power, not sex. It is a fact. Clinically established. Based on interviews of actual rapists. You are misreading that Psychology Today opinion piece. It is not saying denying 13 year olds Milo Manara drawings of women in submissive poses will make them rape women.

That article's author is talking about how sexual repression twists sexuality. I agree. It makes sex dirty and since those types see women as nothing more than vessels that exist only for childbearing or men's sexual pleasure, it also sanctions rape of women as a form of controlling them to stay into one of those two narrow roles. That is what the Prospect article I cited to you is about. Please read it. It explains what causes rape of women, focusing on the horrific gang rapes in India.

The article you cite does not discuss what causes rape of women. Apparently you read this opinion piece as saying that the Catholic Church's celibacy requirement for priests has twisted those priests' sexuality into wanting to rape children. The more prevalent understanding is that the celibacy requirement chases away normal adults, leaving the sick pervs who like to rape kids as a disproportionately larger part of the priest population than they are in the general population. Top that off with a church hierarchy that protects the church above kids, and voila, you have a child rape epidemic among the priest population. No news there.

[Veilex]

120. "Dude, you keep saying you're "done" but you keep posting."

You don't get to cover up your sexism with deflection.
You're still in lock step with your original BS: Spiderwoman cover = sexism... Spiderman cover... eh, I'm okay with that.

And to cement how much I detest your duplicitous sexism, welcome to my ignore list.

My day just got a little better!

[SunSeeker]

123. Good. That means I'll never get you on a jury. nt

[onehandle]

12. The key words are 'variant cover.'

I love the 'double standards' point when it comes to Elle Magazine. When you walk by magazine stands, that's where the naked women are staring at you from.

Full Disclosure: I own two signed Milo Manara prints which make that Spider-Woman cover look pretty un-sexy.

My wife bought them for me.

[Ash_F]

16. That is a classic spiderman pose.

I've seen him drawn like that several times.

Found some examples

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. I guess she's supposed to crawl up the side of a building side saddle.

[SunSeeker]

28. No, she's supposed to crawl up the side of the building the same way Spiderman does.

Not with her butt propped up in the air.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

35. That's how Spiderman does it....

Otherwise, he'd snag his itsy bitsy spider on a water spout.

[SunSeeker]

38. Spiderman does not crawl swaybacked with his butt in the air. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. Did you catch this?

[Veilex]

86. Yeah...they would NEVER place spiderman in a compromising position...

[SunSeeker]

89. That does not compare to Milo's Spiderwoman.

His head is not down, his butt is not up in the air with butt cheeks splayed, higher than any other point on his body.

[DavidG_WI]

185. Except for

the hundreds upon hundreds of comic frames and TV episodes where Pete does exactly that. It wouldn't be Spiderman without gratuitous amounts of spider ass waving in the midnight air. You feminists are hilarious, reaching so hard to have something, anything to be mad at.

[SunSeeker]

189. Except that

No one has posted any one of these supposedly hundreds of frames, let alone a cover, where he is in exactly the Milo Manara pose.

I am not "reaching for something to be mad at."

As I said up the thread, I clicked on the OP expecting to agree with it. 

I come here not to argue with people who diasgree with me, but to enjoy the company of and learn from fellow progressives in a rightwing free and safe environment. I was browsing through the DU homepage and saw a thumbnail in the video column showing only big red women’s butt cheeks spread open as if for penetration, with the words "Double Standard" written over them. I thought it was a post about the disparate, degrading treatment of women in the media, with that cartoon ass being an example.  

I was disappointed to see it was a rant complaining about just the opposite. The dude ridiculed people who object to the Milo Marana Spiderwoman cover because they do not object to a Spiderman cover that this very disingenuous and/or blind narrator claims is the same. When I point out that the two covers are not the same, and explained why, I get attacked and called a sexist. I see outrageous posts saying feminists cause sex crimes and that the only reason feminists object to that Spiderwoman cover is because they don't want men enjoying the female form. Seriously, this thread could be on Free Republic. I haven't even heard Rush Limbaugh say such crazy shit about feminists.  

What's with this "you feminists" derision anyway? As progressive, why aren't you a feminist?

[DavidG_WI]

200. It's still a bog standard

Spiderman pose, that he used a similar style for an erotic novel doesn't change that as that was likely also the inspirational template for how Spiderman should move.

Nobody has posted anything else because theres not much that comes up on a google image search that'd be relevant, mostly cosplay and deviantart crap flooding even when you use excludes.

[DavidG_WI]

201. It's always the same pose

The "camera angle" is just different in the one that was already posted, give me a day or so, I'll dig through what I have in .pdf format and pull the pages with your spiderman buttcrack obsession if you like.

Everyone is objecting to YOU because you are the only one being offended at nothing. And no, big a progressive doesn't mean I'm also a feminist, I'll stand up for equality every day of the week, I however wont stand up for censorship hiding in the guise of a false equality. If you want equality, true equality you have to put forth the effort to bring yourself up to equal instead of expecting the bar to be lowered to you.

Take combat sports as an example, women wanted in, but didn't want to get punched in the face on a regular basis, so their fights weren’t promoted because they wouldn't make money because fight wasn't exciting. It's why "great" fighters like George St. Pierre didn't last long in the UFC after they bought out and merged with Strikeforce, GSP was a title holder for a very long time, because he had one thing going for him, he'd grab hold of you and just hang on to you the whole match, so he'd just wait out the clock. Which works, but isn't something people are going to pay to see, so when he was put into the UFC roster he was let go of quickly for being too boring of a fighter to bring in eyeballs and dollars.

Its only in the last year that female MMA fighters are finally actually fighting instead of there only being 1 woman in any division that would throw down and fight while the rest didn't really want to take a hit like there was for all these years prior. Maybe someday they will have a roster that is capable of competing in a mixed gender division, but since the institutional level of experience for the mens side is several years ahead it'll take some time for the women's divisions build that up, every fight against someone trained by a different team with a different style of doing things will build that, but if they only ever fight the same 5 people over and over again they'll cease to learn anything new.

[SunSeeker]

205. It's not just me.

But it appears others have been chased away by the abusive posters defending the cover.

That's rich, you calling me obsessed when you and your compatriots can't stop posting long-winded diatribes against me all over this thread.

You said there were hundreds of comics with Spiderman in the exact same pose as the Marana cover. I wouldn't think it would be so hard to post just one if that were true.

Feminists are not about "lowering the bar." They are about equal opportunity and equal dignity for both sexes. That's about it. You appear to be going with Rush Limbaugh ' s "feminazi" definition.

[DavidG_WI]

227. Sure you are

YOU are grasping at straws because you have no argument, just self righteous indignation with nothing to back it up. Just because you aren't comfortable with sexuality doesn't mean that you get to prevent anyone else from having access to it.

As to not lowering the bar, the partner of the lesbian politician volunteered for throughout 2012 was a firefighter and went above and beyond going for full hazmat training.

And yes, this is one case were I would have to begrudgingly have to agree with Rush, no mater how much I may loathe to do so because it actually is the correct thing to do.

[SunSeeker]

230. I am not trying to "prevent" you or any adult from having "access" to porn.

I am quite comfortable with sexuality, which is the business of the consenting adults involved. Fear not, no one is coming after your porn stash. Apparently this fear is causing you to stalk me around this thread. Chill, dude.

[DavidG_WI]

234. Then why

do you have a problem with the female form?

Persecution complex much? I'm not stalking anyone, the forum lights up the "My Posts" icon whenever someone replies to me, I originally replied to you due to your egregious lack of logic. I find you sad, yet entertaining, like a depressed clown. Or have you not noticed that I've been making light of you?

[azurnoir]

20. oy I don't get all the controversy over a comic book cover if folks want to get upset

over how women are portrayed in entertainment I could think of better more controversial examples such as Nikki Minaj's album cover for Anaconda , it's real not covered by anything not even her hand -sheesh

[SunSeeker]

24. More shocking is that supposedly progressive DUers don't see what is wrong with that cover.

Yes, you can always find worse examples. I don't think that's the point.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

26. This very progressive DUer believes in equal treatment...

This INCLUDES the idea that a woman shouldn't fear what others think of them.

[SunSeeker]

27. This isn't about fear. This is about respect. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

36. Maybe it's how you are raised....

I spent time at SoCal beaches and people don't act like a woman loses "respect" because she's wearing a bikini.

She doesn't lose "respect" because she sleeps with you either.

[SunSeeker]

37. This isn't about slut shaming a cartoon woman, it's about how a cartoonist portrays women.

When the cartoonist draws a male superhero, he draws him with strength, power and dignity. When he draws a female superhero, she has almost no muscle, her butt up in the air, served up like a piece of candy. Why do female superheroes have to be put in porn poses? Why is her butt drawn three times the size of Spiderman's, out of proportion to her body, while the rest of her is supermodel thin? There are many words that come to mind about how that cartoonist feels about women. Respect is not one of them.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

43. I thought the subliminal was the heart.

[Lizzie Poppet]

130. "Why do female superheroes have to be put in porn poses?"

Because it sells comic books. Years ago, the editor of Heavy Metal responded to a letter criticizing the magazine's virtually softcore presentation by saying* rather bluntly, "Why all the buns and jugs? Buns and jugs sell magazines, pal...so buns and jugs it is." Can't say I like (or even respect) that attitude, but it's how the comic publishing industry works.

Comics (at least in the superhero genre) tend to be exaggerations, caricatures. Their portrayals are unrealistic not just in the action itself, but in physiques, poses...pretty much everything. An old "how to draw comics" book by Stan Lee has a section depicting an action scene with realistic posing and one with comic-style posing...and the realistic one looks lifeless in comparison to the comic one, with it's absurdly exaggerated depiction of a body in motion. There are reams of academic studies and articles on various aspects of the whole superhero genre, and this exaggeration of multiple aspects is a dominant topic. The sexual attractiveness of superheroes is just one aspect that tends to be exaggerated.

That sexual attractiveness is displayed more prominently in female characters because the comic audience was traditionally overwhelmingly male. Women (and gay men) were not the demographic that paid the bills. The comic audience has changed, but the industry has been slow to catch up. Thus we get female superheroes in "fuck me" poses, wearing outfits that would make a stripper blush.

*I'm probably paraphrasing slightly, as this was years ago and I'm working from memory...but you get the gist.

[SunSeeker]

137. "Sexual attractiveness" is not the objection. It's the degrading, powerless pose of Spiderwoman.

Of course cartoon superheroess are unrealistic and exaggerated, and sexually attractive. But why have her head down with butt cheeks open for penetration? Why use an obviously pornographic and degrading pose copied from Milo Manara's Click poster? Spiderwoman can be drawn sexy and powerful. Spiderwomen was drawn to look strong and sexy in prior comics, like the cover I posted up the thread. The two are not mutually exclusive, unless you are only turned on by women in degrading poses. I don't think 13 year olds all have the sensibilities of Milo Manara.

[SunSeeker]

145. Try doing anything with your head down, swaybacked, with butt cheeks spread open.

In fact, just try walking with your back swayed and your butt sticking out.

Other than being penetrated from behind, Spiderwoman is not in a position to do much of anything, let alone be a superhero.

[SunSeeker]

148. The pose is degrading. You have a misogynistic view of what is "natural" for women.

Women do not naturally walk and pose like porn stars. But I guess if you were brought up on porn, you might be confused by what is natural for women.

[Veilex]

88. even more shocking...

is that supposedly progressive DUers see that cover, complain about it, but ignore Spiderman covers, that place him in more compromising positions. Double standard much?

[SunSeeker]

91. I am not ignoring Spiderman covers.

You just have not shown one that puts Spiderman in the same position as Milo's Spiderwoman, let alone "more compromising positions."The double standard is the Milo's portrayal of male versus female superheroes.

[Veilex]

94. Ahhhh so we're now moving the goal post

So it must (in YOUR view) be a "more compromising position", in order to warrant a rebuke? Oh! and it must be me who posts it?!?
Your logic is truly baffling.

If you are not ignoring Spiderman covers, show me a single solitary rebuke for the Spiderman poses... There've already been quite a few posted in this thread I would deem as "more compromising" than the alternate cover for Spiderwoman.

I'd say I'll wait, but I don't have forever... so I'll save you the trouble: there aren't any.

It is exactly your duplicity that makes you a sexist and guarantees you have no leg to stand on.

[SunSeeker]

97. You have yet to show a Spiderman pose in a Spiderman comic that warrants rebuke. nt

[Veilex]

99. Thank you for proving my point.

We're done here.

[SunSeeker]

106. No one has proven your point.

But I can understand why you may have to go.

[Veilex]

121. Indeed.

[immoderate]

29. Is the problem that it's too realistic, or too unrealistic?

Does she have a camel-toe?

--imm

[Warpy]

32. Sorry, cowboy, but the poses are nowhere near the same

The female pose would have her shrieking for a chiropractor, her ass jutting way up into the air like that, in an obvious pose copied from other primate species that use it as a sexual come on.

There is no way she could do anything else in that posture, swaybacked and with the pelvis tilted the opposite way from how an active woman would tilt it.

Stop being so transparently disingenuous Mr. Video guy. You need to listen to women instead of slobbering over unrealistic drawings of them as action heroines who would be incapable of any action other than sex in those porn star poses.

[Cayenne]

34. ISIS, and now this!

[Trajan]

40. LMFAO ... hilarious

I swear ... now we object to asses?

I do not approve of the ridiculously prudish view of sexuality that seems to make these Victorian 'progressives' shriek in utter contempt ...

Sorry, prudes, but your vision of a sexless existence is hardly worth living ... I want nothing to do with your saintly, pollyanna visions, or anybody who promotes it ... plain and simple.

[SunSeeker]

48. It is not nudity or asses that is the problem.

It is how the nude is posed. And how the artist uses nudity. I have no problem with nudity. I have a problem with sexism and showing women in degrading positions.

[Cayenne]

103. Then don't buy the comic

Others do appreciate the artwork.

[SunSeeker]

105. Of course. But I have a right to express my opinion.

No one is advocating coming after anyone's porn stash...er ...Milo Manara drawings.

[Cayenne]

110. Whew, glad to hear it

[Eleanors38]

108. ISIS or ASSIS?

[BainsBane]

44. That guy needs an eye exam

There is no way the positions are the same. Why would anyone think that moron in the video is worth listening to? Is that seriously the best there is on the issue? Talk about an intellectual waste land.

[jamzrockz]

45. Is it a carbon copy

of the male version of spiderman? ofc not. But it is a very similar pose to the ones spiderman have been put in. The video is also good when it talks about how we should stop seeing sexuality in a negative light. So even if you think the spiderwoman pose was intended to showcase a sexualized spiderwoman, there is still nothing wrong with it.

It amazes me how all the feminists that get outraged by sexy female models on nerd/video game entertainment are suddenly mute when it comes to the same type of images used to sell women magazines. Its as if they have a problem only because with nerd/gaming entertainment, its for men's enjoyment.

[SunSeeker]

47. Feminists have no problem with sex. It's sexism we object to.

You appear to not know the difference.

[jamzrockz]

49. Not entirely

There is a reason why they almost never protest sexy female on women magazine covers but get outraged when a similar image is used for men's entertainment. I truly believe they have a problem with any thing that is female/feminine that excites/arouse straight men.

[BainsBane]

52. Stop saying what feminists do not do

Your claims are totally false. There have been critiques of women's magazines for decades. Why would you claim to know what feminists don't do when you obviously have never read any feminist literature? You read this on some gamer or comic site and took it as fact?
How is it you've never seen a single article about photoshopping of imagines in women's magazines? There is a new one every week, at least?

The hysterical thing is you think there is some distance between women's magazines and comics and gaming. They are all part of the same patriarchal capitalist media. They all generate corporate profits and they all feed into the idea of women as ornamental, incidental, the very view you present here. The idea that you think feminists care all about you, as though women's rights and concerns mean nothing. I assure you, feminists do not share that view.

You don't even show any awareness that women too read comic books and are even the majority of the gaming market. You don't even bother to look up basic facts. You just assume the only thing that matters is men, yourself. There is no single point on which you are not entirely and embarrassingly wrong. You should stop while you're behind. You make your case worse with every post.

[jamzrockz]

57. I am not talking about photoshopped images

Feminist complain when entertainment uses female sexuality to sell entertainment to men and boys and yet rarely complain when the same is done to sell women products. My sister used to live with me when she was going to college and she used to subscribe to Women's health magazine and just about every cover image that came in every month will be considered female sex objectification by these activists that have descended on gaming. I am talking about cover pics that will give you any red blooded straight man a raging boner in mins if they are not careful. Yet that doesn't seem to bother most of these activists that are now having a war gamers and I think the difference is because of who the media is targeted at. Btw, if you have mainstream articles decrying these sort of portrayals of real women (not photoshopped ones), I want to see it.

Why assume generating corporate profit is somehow connected to patriarchy? women want to make money too, they want to run successful corporation that have a good ROI for their investors. This idea that women editors and owners of magazine using sexy female models to sell to a women audience is patriarchy is just tin foil hat thinking.

I know females read comic books, but its not the females reading the comics that are complaining. The complaint is coming mainly from outsiders who do not understand the culture, they come in and assume the females in the culture are uncomfortable and need some rescuing. This is why they always seem to get their facts wrong and take everything out of context to somehow prove misogyny in everything that they do. Btw women make up about 47% of the gaming audience only when you count facebook games and cellphone games as part of gaming. Change the numbers to console and PC gaming and they make up anywhere between 7% (WiiU buyers) to 22%

[BainsBane]

63. Wrong

You are completely wrong. I provided you videos showing as much. Quit saying what feminists don't do because you have made a point of avoiding all information provided.

[etherealtruth]

58. WTF?

[treestar]

59. Point way over your head

Or you're oblivious. Yes, it's that men get all that served up to them and women are used for it.

It's because sex is seen as for men and something women exist to give to them. Since you believe that so thoroughly, you don't see it as a problem.

[SunSeeker]

65. Feminists do not "have a problem with anything that is female that arouses straight men."

Feminists believe in equal respect and opportunity for the sexes. The vast majority of feminists are straight, like me, and many are male. As a progressive, you should be a feminist. But you're not. Because you think feminists are all lesbians who want to keep sexy women all to themselves--so men can't enjoy women. Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds? It sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would say when railing about "feminazis."

Feminists do not object to sexy shots of women. Feminists do not object to sex. Feminists are not prudes. In fact, they object to slut shaming. They support sex education and birth control. They think women should be able to enjoy sex just like men. They think women should be allowed to wear whatever they want and breast feed in public. They think women should be free to go braless and/or topless if they want to, just like men. That is why feminists in the 1970s were pejoratively called "bra-burners."

Feminists DO object to degrading or exploitative use of women in advertising or magazines. Advertising has made quantum leaps forward because of feminist pressure. Gone, for the most part, are the dizzy homemaker stereotypes and "father knows best" voice overs. Just check out the old 1950s TV ads on YouTube to see how far we've come, thanks to feminists.

The objection to the Spiderwoman cover is that her butt is WAY up in the air in a porn pose, rather than giving her muscles and a powerful stance like Spiderman. She is swaybacked and NOT in the same powerful crouch as Spiderman. She is not drawn to look muscular like a superhero, but rather, with skinny arms and legs, and a disproportionately large ass, like a porn star. I understand from his fans on this thread that this cartoonist's thing is drawing women in explicit porn poses. That is what he did here. Can you not understand why that pisses off women and girls who want to see women get the same dignity and powerful portrayal as men get in entertainment media? The way Spiderwoman was drawn is disrespectful and degrading. Why can't our female superheroes look powerful and awesome, like male superheroes? Why do they have to be drawn as pieces of porn meat? This is a comic book, not Hustler or "men's entertainment" as you call it.

[BainsBane]

50. Right, they have a problem because it's for men's enjoyment

because women, or girls, don't read comic books. After all, what other purpose do women serve on this planet other than "male enjoyment."

The positions are not the same. That you describe the spiderwoman image as about sexuality and for male enjoyment proves as much. Try to pick one argument and stick with it rather than blatantly contradicting yourself.

It amazes me how all the feminists that get outraged by sexy female models on nerd/video game entertainment are suddenly mute when it comes to the same type of images used to sell women magazines.

Suddenly mute? Feminists have critiqued "women's magazines" for decades. The Killing Us Softy videos posted on this site dozens of times began in 1979, and articles have been written on the subject for even longer. I've even seen the videos on public access television.

Then there is the fact such high-brow sites as Upworthy and other show biz sites publish cases of particularly bad photoshopping of women's bodies. You don't have to read academic literature to stumble upon this stuff. It is everywhere.

Next time you want to claim what feminists don't do, avoid the impulse. You make it painfully obvious you have less familiarity with the subject than a casual reader of People Magazine or the Star.

As for the "outrage" about video games. What you refer to as "outrage" is the publication of an analysis of sexist tropes in gaming, a discussion that some cowardly nerds found so threatening they besieged writer Anita Sarkeesian with so many threats of rape and death she had to leave her home. http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/08/28/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games-creator-driven-from-her-home-by-online-threats-and-abuse/
But you claim the "outrage" is the fact she and other feminists critique that imagery rather than the responses by violent online predators who find freedom of speech an affront to their pathetic manhood.

As for shame about sexuality, commerce is not sexuality. Objectification for profit is not sexuality. Sexuality is what people share, not what boys (and some men, I suppose) buy to read in their parent's basements while eating Cheeto's and drinking Mountain Dew.

Your breath of knowledge on the subject truly is underwhelming. If you should decide to take on feminism in the future, I suggest you do some reading aside from comic books to prepare yourself for something approaching informed debate. The choice of video in the OP is suddenly clear.

[treestar]

60. "Women's" magazines

often are for the purpose of teaching us how to be better sex objects for men.

[BainsBane]

143. The object is the comic book

The depiction of spiderwoman is an image that communicates how society views woman.

[BainsBane]

147. It obviously communicates enough

for you to start an account to argue with me about it.

[TlalocW]

51. Didn't we go through this a few years ago?

With this image of Catwoman in an improbable pose?

And damn it, if I'm going to have to get all nerdy on your asses, the reason the costumes in Marvel cling to separate buttocks so tenaciously is chances are they're made out of the same unstable molecules that Reed "Mister Fantastic" Richards of the Fantastic Four made his costume out of.



TlalocW

[SunSeeker]

67. It's not the "cling" of the costume. It's the pose. nt

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

53. The guy's not fooling himself

Another cover, by the same artist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Manara#mediaviewer/File:ManaraClic.gif

People can claim she's just climbing up a building the same way spider-man does, but it's pretty apparent what the old perv was going for when he drew it.

[SunSeeker]

66. Wow. Now THAT is the same pose, waist up.

Thanks for finding that.

[Warren DeMontague]

126. You think explicit depictions of sexuality or nudity indicate perversion?

Damn. Being turned on by yaks covered in cottage cheese, that's perversion IMHO.

But being turned on by a shapely adult human butt? "Perv"? Really?

[SunSeeker]

135. It's the pose, dude. It is not perverse to be turned on by the human body.

Milo Manara puts Spiderwomen in a powerless, swaybacked, butt cheeks splayed open up in the air for penetration pose. That is not a superhero, but porn, and degrading porn at that. It is simply him redrawing the woman spreading her butt cheeks for the crowd in the square from his Click series.

[Warren DeMontague]

155. So leaving aside a subjective disagreement on interpretation which is probably pointless to argue,

what do you suppose are the real-world impacts this "controversy" will have, on the limited edition spiderwoman comic cover release with the Manara cover, specifically pertaining to sales and price?

[SunSeeker]

157. Why are you not more concerned with the impacts of degrading female images on 13 year olds?

Do you have kids?

[Warren DeMontague]

167. "the impacts of degrading female images on 13 year olds" - let's, shall we say, "unpack" that.

Specifically, the number of assumptions which I am apparently required to accept, to answer that... I guess it's a question, or at least some sort of lame accusation trying to pretend it's a question.

1) The assumption that everyone who buys a special edition alternate cover of a comic book is 13.

2) The assumption that "degrading female images" like a picture of spiderwoman crouching, have an "impact" on 13 year olds

3) The assumption that the image in the Manara cover- and again, subjective interpretation, along with the numerous examples of spider-man doing the same move - is "degrading".

4) The assumption that I'm somehow obligated to answer your question when you didn't answer the one I asked you, first.

I don't accept, #1, #2, #3 or #4.

And hell yes, I'm a parent, and there are a lot of things I worry about more than this particular comic book cover, which is to say, not at all.

[SunSeeker]

169. Seriously, you don't think portraying women as sexual objects affects kids?

Sure, this magazine alone is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other crap out there. But still, why the outrage over the outrage? Why is the narrator whipped into a frenzy over people pointing out the sexual objectification of Spiderwoman in a comic sold to kids? Are we only allowed to comment on the really bad stuff, like gang rapes or serial killers who target women?

[Warren DeMontague]

170. More assumptions.

Along with a couple dubious, ill-defined concepts.

And a red herring or two, whizzin' down the ever-popular slippery slope.

Short answer, no, I don't think there is a single 13 year old on the planet who will be realistically "impacted" by this drawing.

[SunSeeker]

172. It's a popular comic. I'd say a lot of kids are going to see it.

Just seeing it will reinforce, however incrementally, the message that women are sexual objects. Your daughters deserve better. As do your sons if you want them to have healthy relationships with women.

[Warren DeMontague]

174. As far as I'm concerned, there is at least one totally meaningless concept in your post.

Attempts at shaming me with meaningless concepts won't work, to say the least.

[SunSeeker]

176. If this was a racist cover, no one would be saying no kids would be "impacted."

No one would argue that impact on kids was a "meaningless concept."

[Warren DeMontague]

179. And if it was a triple decker ice cream sundae, it would need to be eaten, or it would melt.

Someone in the other thread was trying to say that Spiderwoman's butt was just like the Klan burning a cross on someone's yard.




Well I remain committed to the perhaps odd notion that sex, sexuality, people finding others physically attractive, people portraying others as physically attractive, physical attraction based upon superficial characteristics, even portraying a superhero in a "sexually available" pose- all of them are absolutely nothing like racism.

They're just...... not.

[SunSeeker]

180. It's nothing like racism because it's women being degraded. Who cares, amiright?

[Warren DeMontague]

188. Nope.

No one is being degraded.

[SunSeeker]

190. Would you want your daughter in that position on a magazine cover? nt

[Warren DeMontague]

193. My daughter would have to be a cartoon superhero. However, that cartoon superhero appears to be an

Adult.

Similarly, when "my" daughter is an adult, she can make up her own mind about such things.

[SunSeeker]

196. Yeah, I figured you wouldn't answer the question.

I hope your daughter doesn’t know her dad thinks that Milo Marana Spiderwoman cover is awesome. It could really shape what she "makes up her mind" to do as an adult...if not sooner.

[Warren DeMontague]

197. I don't think it's degrading, no.

"Awesome" - a word I never used about it - might be a bit of stretch... the face is flat: it's not exactly what I would call a hugely impressive piece of art.

Still, that's pretty funny that you "figured i wouldnt answer the question" (see below).. I did, but to elaborate, i hope my kids find work they personally find challenging, stimulating, and rewarding, however they define those things- in terms of jobs they might take that would cause me to be upset or worried; i would probably rank stuff like the folks who scuba dive to clean out the nuclear power plant water inlets, or similarly dangerous jobs, at the top of my "worried" list.

If a kid of mine grew up and wanted to grace the covers of magazines (we are spectacularly good-looking people, after all ) no it would not "bother" me --- if that was what they chose to do.

Horrors. Surely you have divined what a rotten parent I must be by now, total stranger on the internet.

But oh yes, the thing about not answering questions. You never answered mine, upthread, so I'll ask again: leaving aside subjective interpretations of the comic cover (too late for that! You know, "degrading", etc etc) what do you suppose the real-world implications will be for the sales and value of this limited alternate edition, due to this "controversy"?

[SunSeeker]

199. I suppose Marvel will make money off this, with folks like you buying their porn comics.

And seeing nothing wrong with their kids reading it. Your daughter will learn that she's supposed to have stick like arms and legs but huge T&A--because obviously that's the part that matters most on a woman. And she'll learn her daddy thinks Spiderwoman in a head down butt cheeks spread rear penetration porn pose is not degrading at all, because that's what women are for.

[Warren DeMontague]

202. Yep.

I can safely say that not one single one of those things is going to happen, Nostradamus.

[SunSeeker]

206. Good. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

208. Innit?

Oh, the one thing that probably will happen here is that this so-called controversy will make what otherwise would have been a relative non-event with a piece of art that-- well, personally I think suffers from some profound spatial perspective problems, and not in a good comic book way-- the "controversy", such as it is will almost invariably drive prices and value of this edition through the roof.

Which might just mean that the ka-ching sound coming from marvel is also the sound of lots of overly earnest bloggers and media sanctimony poo-bahs being played. Bigtime.

The $$$$ wont come from "the likes of" me, though.

Don't get me wrong; have less than no problem with sexually suggestive images of women, scantily clad posteriors or smut/erotic art, I just don't give two shits for comic books and superheroes.

[SunSeeker]

209. You sure make a big fuss defending something you "don't give two shits for." nt

[Warren DeMontague]

211. I'm defending the idea that the picture of spiderwoman's butt is not, actually, that big of a deal

and it certainly doesn't bear any sort of comparison to Klan cross-burning, which has to win for goofiest analogy made on DU in the past 5 months.

that doesn't mean I'm a fan.

...and maybe I'm doing a few people a favor by encouraging them to think critically about internet-spun "outrages" and what's really behind them, sort of like how "bad boy" James Franco always seems to coincidentally get in a 'spot o' trouble' right before he has a movie coming out--- a movie that, you know, will have tickets for sale.

You're in So. Cal?



....This can't be new news to you.

[SunSeeker]

214. You're defending selling a comic with a degrading rear penetration porn shot on the cover to kids.

Even in Southern California, people, certainly parents, would not say that is "not that big of a deal."

And spare me your paternalistic rationalization for it, saying you're doing it as a favor to people who are too stupid to realize they are being used as marketing pawns. I didn't post the OP. As I said above, I didn't know about the cover until I saw the OP. It was the OP poster who brought this cover to DUers' attention, not me. When I gave my opinion about it, I got attacked by folks like you and called names. And now you're saying all that abuse you heaped on me was for my own good. Nice victim blaming you got there.

[Warren DeMontague]

217. Right.

I disagreed with you, that's not "abuse". In fact, you're the one who made it personal, dragging crap about my family into it.

[SunSeeker]

220. No, there's a difference between disagreement and abuse.

And your posts were abusive.

[Warren DeMontague]

221. Again, there's no point in trying to argue over subjective interpretation, but you're wrong.

Also, where did I "call you names"? Got a link? I didn't.

[SunSeeker]

222. Post 202. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

223. Oh, right, I called you "Nostradamus", which is a well-known abusive insult. After, of course, you

made a whole series of spurious predictions* about the inevitable results of what you imagine must be my deficient child-rearing capabilities, as a total stranger on the internet (we haven't met, have we?) based upon, again, nothing more than the fact that I don't think spiderwoman's butt in this alternate comic book cover version, is a very big deal.

So.... let's go back up that chain of "abuse", shall we?

Post 180: I'm a misogynist, because of the apparently unchallengeable notion that spiderwoman's butt is exactly like racism.

Post 190: Dragging my kids into it. And, I'm a crappy parent.

Post 196: Again, the fact that I don't think spiderwoman's butt is a big deal will, apparently, lead to all manner of horrific moral turpitude for my presumed daughter(s) as adults, if not sooner cue spooky music .. If I had to guess, I'd say this post alone justifies the "Nostradamus" line. Also, you put "makes up her mind" in scare quotes, implying that people thinking for themselves is.. what, a fantasy? an illusion? Good grief. Anyway, I happen to know any daughter of mine would find that shizzz profoundly offensive.

Post 199: More predictions (okay, maybe "Karnak?&quot along with the assertion that "people like you" think women -who I hate, of course- MUST ALL have porn butts and stick arms & legs and walk around in something called a "rear penetration pose" all the time--- again, because I think the spiderwoman butt picture is no big deal.



* =

[SunSeeker]

226. Yes, it was mocking name-calling. After you asked, repeatedly, that I make a prediction.

You even threw in a laughing emoticon, just to make sure I knew were mocking me. No, it probably was not hideable name-calling. You've been around here long enough to know how to stay just inside that line. But it was name calling nonetheless, meant to mock. Hence, abusive.

I didn't drag your kids into it. I tried to get you to see it from the perspective of a parent, like me. I don't even know if you really have kids.

[Warren DeMontague]

229. Right. You insist on making it personal because you seemingly can't deal with the fact

that not everyone agrees with your core assumptions, like that the pose inherently implies so-called "degrading" acts or whatnot.

And heaven forfend anyone should 'mock' the idea that there's some analogous-ness between spiderwoman's cartoon butt in an alternate limited edition comic book cover and, say, the KKK.

As for the rest of it, I actually try pretty hard to present myself genuinely around here, and unlike a lot of people, I try pretty hard to avoid making shit personal.

I happen to know that there are a lot of people- or usernames- here that are pretending to be things they are not. Usually they think they're doing a better job fooling people, than they actually are. Personally, I don't have time for that crap.

[SunSeeker]

232. You obviously have plenty of time to keep badgering me with long-winded pointless posts. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

233. Yep. Got nothin' but time.

So if this is going to be one of those fun "gotta get the last word" subthreads, make sure you've got a snack, a drink, and a comfortable seat.

[DavidG_WI]

245. Still at this?

Least you could do would be to put some effort into it.

[BainsBane]

173. The guy must have some fetish for that bone/muscle

the triangular shaped thing at the top of the buttocks. What's up with that?

[LuvLoogie]

54. Her ass isn't bigger

Her legs are smaller and her waist is narrower. That's all.

It's a comic book, right?

[Warren DeMontague]

125. "People were tripping over themselves to be offended"

Yes, yes they were.

I still think this will end up driving prices for the alternate cover edition through the roof.

Gee, funny how that works.

[merrily]

127. Mods?

[pipoman]

129. This should be on a list of most outrageous outrage of the year 2014...

The kicker truly is the typical Elle, Vogue, Cosmopolitan, etc. cover art....at least this is actually art whereas these others are photos of actual women posed in sexually provocative poses.. really outrageous outrage...

Oh, and kudos for Marvel marketing mission accomplished. ...

[SunSeeker]

136. Yes, let's give Marvel an award for profiting off selling woman-degrading porn to 13-year-olds.

[pipoman]

139. LOL

Your outrage is noted...

[SunSeeker]

149. How old are you? nt

[pipoman]

150. Old enough to know and be able to identify selective outrage when I see it...

[SunSeeker]

158. No, you apparently are not.

As I said up the thread, I clicked on the OP expecting to agree with it.

I come here not to argue with people who diasgree with me, but to enjoy the company of and learn from fellow progressives in a rightwing free and safe environment. I was browsing through the DU homepage and saw a thumbnail in the video column showing only big red women’s butt cheeks spread open as if for penetration, with the words "Double Standard" written over them. I thought it was a post about the disparate, degrading treatment of women in the media, with that cartoon ass being an example. 

I was disappointed to see it was a rant complaining about just the opposite. The dude ridiculed people who object to the Milo Marana Spiderwoman cover because they do not object to a Spiderman cover that this very disingenuous and/or blind narrator claims is the same. When I point out that the two covers are not the same, and explained why, I get attacked and called a sexist. I see outrageous posts saying feminists cause sex crimes and that the only reason feminists object to that Spiderwoman cover is because they don't want men enjoying the female form. Seriously, this thread could be on Free Republic. I haven't even heard Rush Limbaugh say such crazy shit about feminists. 

[pipoman]

182. Usually liberals are more tolerant of artistic license

And far less prudish than conservatives. The only people outraged and shocked by this are people who haven't purchased a comic book for a decade or never....this is today's comics. I read up thread where you are adamantly insisting the pose on the cover is vastly different than the several photos of spiderman posted...this is disingenuous to say the least...

[SunSeeker]

184. This isn't art for adults. It's a Spiderwoman comic for kids.

And the poses are very different. I described the differences in several posts here. At least one poster who was trying to defend this cover admitted that a man in this position would look "weird."

You are confusing sex with sexism, like so many on this thread who appear to be raised on porn. It is not prudish to object to sexism. I have no problem with sex or nudity. I have a problem with depicting a female superhero in a powerless (almost no muscle), swaybacked pose with her butt cheeks spread apart high above any other part of her body, as if she is nothing more than a vessel for penetration from behind. Just because it gets you aroused and is your idea of normal sex, does absolve it from being degrading or sexist.

If that is what gets you aroused, that's your business, but it is wrong to sell that to kids. It teaches them that women are sex objects. That the ideal woman has porn star dimensions and no muscle. It's a pretty twisted message.

[DavidG_WI]

186. Because

modern comic books never have sex in them...

[pipoman]

212. Have you been to comicon? The comic industry is driven not by kids,

But by adults. Sure there are kids, early teen, but the vast majority of people who are diehard comic collectors are in fact adults.

Yeah, I saw you raging on about how entirely different the poses are....I have eyes too...

Oh, and what about all of those newsstand women's mags? Where's the outrage? No, it is prudish selective outrage driving this debate. ..

Kids aren't using their spiderman cover for their sexual fantasies, they are using their moms Elle, or Cosmo magazine...or more likely just Google images. ...

[SunSeeker]

213. It's a rear penetration porn pose on the cover of a comic sold to kids.

I don't care how many adults buy it, if they sell it to kids it's wrong and I have a right to say so. It is curious that you are so infuriated by me simply voicing my opinion about a comic book on an OP that I did not post.

Elle and Cosmo don't put women in rear penetration porn poses on their covers. The problem with those magazines is they show air brushed emaciated women as advertising vehicles. Feminists object to those magazines too. If you think they don't, you aren't paying attention.

[pipoman]

215. I suppose it depends on where your mind is when you look at it..

And no, you haven't merely expressed your opinion in this thread, you have posted half of the posts in the thread...frankly the post you responded to in this subthread was simply my opinion. ..you came to me with your outrage...

[SunSeeker]

216. Yes, the nerve of me commenting on your post. On a discussion board.

When you post, it's just you expressing your opinion. When I post, it's me "bringing my outrage."
How dare I post so much! Don't I know women should be seen (preferably with Milo Manara style Spiderwoman spread butt cheeks) and not heard? When people repeatedly reply to my posts, call me names and ridicule feminists, I should just shut up and take it. Where do I think I am? Some kind of progressive discussion board?

[pipoman]

218. Lol...you are the one playing the victim. ..ffs

It is curious that you are so infuriated by me simply voicing my opinion about a comic book on an OP that I did not post. 

Was it not you who posted this? We all come here to discuss, you are pretending to be merely "voicing my opinion"...no, you are raging on about other people's opinions.

[SunSeeker]

219. The cover degrades women. As a woman, I am a victim of that.

Just like African Americans are victims of a Sambo cartoon.

[pipoman]

236. Yeah...you have been victimized by spiderman. ..

[SunSeeker]

239. No, Spiderman has nothing to do with this. nt

[DavidG_WI]

224. The truth

You just refuse to accept it.

You came here looking for a reason to be offended, not to have a discussion. You can from a position of a conclusion and refused all evidence that proved you wrong.

What does that make you?

I'll tell you, the exact same thing as the conservatives.

[SunSeeker]

231. I refuse to accept lies. I'm not going to apologize for that.

I did not come here "looking for a reason to be offended." As I stated up the thread, I come here not to argue with people who disagree with me, but to enjoy the company of and learn from fellow progressives in a rightwing free and safe environment. I was browsing through the DU homepage and saw a thumbnail in the video column showing only big red women’s butt cheeks spread open as if for penetration, with the words "Double Standard" written over them. I thought it was a post about the disparate, degrading treatment of women in the media, with that cartoon ass being an example.

I was disappointed to see it was a rant complaining about just the opposite. The dude ridiculed people who object to the Milo Marana Spiderwoman cover because they do not object to a Spiderman cover that this very disingenuous and/or blind narrator claims is the same. When I point out that the two covers are not the same, and explained why, I get attacked and called a sexist. I see outrageous posts saying feminists cause sex crimes and that the only reason feminists object to that Spiderwoman cover is because they don't want men enjoying the female form. Seriously, this thread could be on Free Republic. I haven't even heard Rush Limbaugh say such crazy shit about feminists.

Then you jumped in to this sub-thread, replying to a post that was not directed at you. This from the guys who complained I have too many posts on this thread. Well, the reason I have so many posts on this thread is you and your compatriots just can't let it go and have ganged up on me, posting to me over and over and over again.

[DavidG_WI]

235. And yet

You are taking the most right wing position here and trying to paint it as a leftist position.

Ample proof was given to you by myself and others and yet you shoot it down like a climate denier or a creationist.

You came here with the intent of slut shaming just because it's a female character in a sexualized position. YOU are the one that has a problem with sexuality, but only as it pertains to female characters. But you don't care that the male characters are at an absolutely impossible to attain physique and that if the censors would allow it they'd show an equally impossible package bulge.

As to your assertions that comics are for kids: Go read Saga, normally proportioned characters, but with tons of nudity and actual sex. https://imagecomics.com/comics/series/saga Oh, the artist is Fiona Staples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Staples and nobody bothers them about it. But many people would take offense if Captain America had his patriotic super junk showing through his jump suit. https://imgur.com/r/MURICA/cZyM2hL

Actually I just found this subforum, I'm a new user that only just made my first 10 posts, sure I made my account months ago, but hadn't actually used it until just a few days ago. I figured the topic is new enough and active enough it was fine to just jump in wherever since I've got some background in this type of issue ad who do I find but you...

In the immortal words of Bruce Lee: "You have offended my family and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

[pipoman]

237. Other progressives and liberals get sick to fucking

Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2014, 08:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Death of a few defining what it is to be progressive or liberal. I am a liberal and believe you are nuts if you believe you have been victimized by a comic book.

[SunSeeker]

240. Are African American s victimized by Sambo comics? nt

[pipoman]

243. "victimized"? Only if they allow themselves to be.

[DavidG_WI]

246. Sambo you say?

Why don't we go ask the people in Race & Ethnicity / African American subforum about your false equivalence?

[SunSeeker]

247. I see. Racism is bad. Sexism not so much.

[DavidG_WI]

249. Theres no

there, there. As has been pointed out to you many, many times. And since you made an inflamatory false equivilence with racial overtones, I want to see you have that out with them. I've already made the popcorn.

[SunSeeker]

252. There's an AA man on this thread. He seems to get the sexism here.

But it's not like the AA community is immune from sexism. There was a particularly ugly episode involving a Harriet Tubman parody last year, resulting in this thoughtful opinion piece in Grio.

http://thegrio.com/2013/08/30/the-reality-of-black-male-privilege/

[DavidG_WI]

255. Still a false equivalence

I've already posted plenty of evidence of male characters in the same comics that are also sexualized. When both are sexualized then there is no disparity, both are equal.

On top of that you have run around this thread making accusations of being stalked and being violated by this:

[SunSeeker]

241. I'm fucking sick of sexism. nt

[pipoman]

238. Um, no again....

you and your compatriots just can't let it go and have ganged up on me, posting to me over and over and over again.

Lol, more silliness...you were being responded to in this subthread. People tend to respond when others post responses to their posts.

[SunSeeker]

242. I see. You're one of those guys who MUST have the last word.

Well knock yourself out. Please carry on without me.

[pipoman]

244. No, I'm "one of those guys" who is going to point out that

Liberalism = liberal thinking, acceptance of diversity, and free will; not conservative shaming, closed mindedness, and unilateral thinking.

[SunSeeker]

248. CONSERVATIVES are the biggest consumers of porn.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html#.VBBTNT90y70

With Utah leading the way.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705288350/Utah-No-1-in-online-porn-subscriptions-report-says.html?pg=all

So defending the pornification of kids' comics is hardly being a liberal lion.

[pipoman]

250. LIBERALS defend freedom of speech

LIBERALS defended Larry Flynt when CONSERVATIVES tried to place their moral objections upon us all. CONSERVATIVES sponsor book burnings, library exclusion, "public decency" protests, etc. "Pro choice" isn't just an abortion debate term, it is LIBERAL ideology.

[SunSeeker]

251. Liberals defend human dignity.

I am not advocating taking anyone's free speech rights.

Conservatives went after Larry Flynt for making fun of Jerry Falwell, not because he peddles porn.

[pipoman]

253. Lol...now a comic book has violated your "human dignity"?

You really are taking this much too seriously. Guessing you would be on the front line to ban this book from the library....

And no, Jerry Falwell "went after" Flynt for a parody in 1983. Conservatives went after him for violating public decency in 1976 The People of Ohio vs. Larry Flynt.

[Warren DeMontague]

256. So--- which Presidential candidate in recent years was responsible for this quote:

“America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking,”

and promised to "wage a war on obscenity"?



... do you know?

[DavidG_WI]

258. No they don't

Liberals support freedom of expression and reject censorship.

[Warren DeMontague]

254. I don't think those studies "prove" what you think they do.

new research finds one thing that varies little across the nation: the liking for online pornography.

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

"When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different," says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

What that 'proves' is a few points, one, explicit sexual material is popular across the board, even with people who swear up and down that they have a moral objection to it publicly.

two, the 2009 study was of paid online subscriptions to porn, and Utah led the way- meaning perhaps that Utah watches more porn, or meaning perhaps that Utah leads the way in people who haven't figured out that there is porn on the internet for free.

[DavidG_WI]

257. Selection bias

While true, that sexually repressed people seek out porn more often, that doesn't mean that only the sexually repressed seek out porn, I politically float somewhere between green party and democrat, I've even worked for the Dems, I've got no problem with my sexuality and yet I also have a 3Tb of porn in my media backend array, right there with the hundreds of hours of progressive documentaries saved off of FSTV, LinkTV, and Pivot. Whatever you want to watch I probably have it.

The porn industry today is not what it was, gone are the sites like Ghetto Gaggers, Meatholes, Max Hardcore and Steve Sweet. Porn has really cleaned up it's act. If you want to know what it was like go pick up "Girlvert - A Porn Memoir" by Oriana Small A.K.A. Ashley Blue, who was always a favorite of mine because she was game for anything.

You want to see a more progressive take on porn, go check out Joanna Angel's site, Burning Angel, It's my current favorite because of all of the wonderful girls covered in tats and piercings. It's female owned and operated, if the girls don't like the guys they don't get to make a scene.

If you aren't comfortable in your own skin you can always go hide in a hijab instead of demonizing those of us that celebrate sexuality.

[Warren DeMontague]

156. Even better than those Drain-o ads that had "One Million Moms" so upset.

One million* moms demand smut-free drain declogger advertising!

*not, actually, one million

[1StrongBlackMan]

151. Hey ...

Dude (not you, jamzrockz) but the enlightened commentator guy ...

Funny, the commentator guy is on a anti-hetero-centric/anti-sexism rant and then does something that made me at the 4:52 mark ... it was (thought to be) cute; but ...

Consider going back the the clip and put o'rielly's face at the 4:50 (ass) or 4:51 (penis) mark; rather than, referencing him as a female body part?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

160. True

Everyone knows O'Reilly's an asshole.

[1StrongBlackMan]

161. And most would argue ...

that o'reilly is a d!ck, in the most vulgar sense of the word.

[SunSeeker]

163. Obviously, the narrator thinks calling a man a vagina is a bigger insult.

This as he is ranting about sexism.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

164. Actually I agree with the guy for the most part

Just not his choice of words for O'Reilly.

[SunSeeker]

165. ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

166. My point, exactly. eom.

[DavidG_WI]

181. Ok, so what's the big deal?

Apparently nobody reads comics these days else they'd know that ALL of the heroes and villains alike be they male or female are impossibly proportioned chiselled gods and goddesses do entirely to the fact that that is what they are supposed to represent.

As to Spiderman not being in that position? He's in that position at least once an issue.

Have a look at some other characters, notice anything about both the male AND female characters? I mean look at the pic of the Dark Avengers, take a look at the Sentry(blond guy in yellow and blue) and Ares(guy in black with an axe), no man on earth could ever look like that no matter how many steroids they took, and no, they aren't "hulk" style characters, Sentry is Marvel's answer to Superman and Ares is Marvel's take on the Greek god or war.




What? The Dark Reign storyline is actually pretty damn good, like the real world, the road to hell was paved with good intentions(Civil War storyline) and now the villains are in control because of it.

[Warren DeMontague]

198. The big deal is that people don't think it's a big deal, which PROVES it's a big deal.

Welcome to DU.

[DavidG_WI]

204. It's

A mountain out of a molehill, please read my other posts on this.

Claiming it's sexists when both male and female characters are depicted in sexualized form is just slut shaming and censorship by another name. Most here would be up in arms if it was Limbaugh talking about it.

If the goal truly is equality, then the comics have already been there for some time since everyone, male and female is impossibly proportioned. The only thing wrong with the cover is the angle at which the head sits, it implies no neck with the head coming almost out of the back.

Also, thanks, if I'm allowed to stay I'll try and implement a little humility by force if necessary.

[Warren DeMontague]

207. Im kidding.

But i have seen that logic used here.

[SecureExpert]

210. Reply

Nice)))

[Darkhawk32]

259. Stupidest controversy ever. Anyone offended needs to get over themselves.

Quit the feigned indignation.

[big lu]

260. haha, the guy in this video's great

[DavidG_WI]

261. I take it

You've never been to The Best age In The Universe http://maddox.xmission.com/

Thats old school internet right there, you'll find some of the funniest things ever originated from Maddox's mind.

[Darb]

263. A BIG shout out to........

Sunseeker! Way to hold your own against a rather oddly large group of the willfully blind.

I'm with you all the way. That pic is not a double standard, it is purposeful objectification of women.

No doubt about it from my vantage point.