Marvel features spider woman's ass on cover of issue #1

[Warren DeMontague]

369. At least that link tries to offer a somewhat workable, qualitative set of standards for what,

In reality, usually boils down to "that picture is sexually objectifying because i dont like it and other people think it is hot"

For instance, the 2014 SI cover. Oh, fuck, that was supposed to be the watershed of an example of "objectification"- but why? It was 3 undeniably attractive young women in bathing suits, on a beach. That's it.

So let's break this down regarding the spider woman image, since that is ostensibly what the thread is about;

1) Does the image show only part(s) of a sexualized person’s body?

No.


2) Does the image present a sexualized person as a stand-in for an object?

No.

3) Does the image show sexualized persons as interchangeable?

No.


4) Does the image affirm the idea of violating the bodily integrity of a sexualized person who can’t consent?

No.

5) Does the image suggest that sexual availability is the defining characteristic of the person?

This is a pretty subjective one, the biggest tent under which folks can park their objectionable "hot" images, but, still no, in this case I don't think so.

6) Does the image show a sexualized person as a commodity that can be bought and sold?

No.

7) Does the image treat a sexualized person’s body as a canvas?

No.