Video & Multimedia

SunSeeker

(58,318 posts)

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

Tue Sep 9, 2014, 12:25 AM

Sep 2014

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

263 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Spider-Woman's Big Ass is a Big Deal! [View all] jamzrockz Sep 2014 OP

Here's the male version, 1999 Spiderman #30: NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #1

That is one uncomfortable pose jamzrockz Sep 2014 #3

He's part spider jberryhill Sep 2014 #5

It is not the same pose. Spiderwoman's ass is featured WAY more prominently and much higher. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #8

While not identical, the pose is the same. Veilex Sep 2014 #14

If it is "not identical" then by definition it is not the same. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #15

Actually, he's drawn as a beefcake. Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2014 #25

No, he's drawn as a superhero. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #30

... Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2014 #31

"If it is "not the same" then by definition it is not identical." Veilex Sep 2014 #69

Oh please. Milo Manara repurposed his porn poster from Click. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #76

You can have a sexy, muscular Spiderwoman superhero without portraying women in a degrading manner. Veilex Sep 2014 #81

I am not telling you what to think. I am pointing out a fact. nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #95

Still the same pose DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #225

Nope. In none of those is he swaybacked and his butt turned up, anus exposed. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #228

.. Ash_F Sep 2014 #17

Her legs are well below her butt. His legs are even with his butt. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #18

You seem angry. Ash_F Sep 2014 #19

So you resort to the standard sexist attack line: "You seem angry." SunSeeker Sep 2014 #22

Nah, not buying it. Ash_F Sep 2014 #41

why oh why jamzrockz Sep 2014 #46

Women tend to have bigger butts flying rabbit Sep 2014 #61

Not when they're supermodel thin, like the rest of her is drawn. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #64

"That is NOT the ideal standard of a woman." Veilex Sep 2014 #70

The poster I was responding to said that was the ideal, not the artist. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #73

So you think this artwork is "sexist bigoted crap" but you have no problem with other spiderman art? Veilex Sep 2014 #75

I can discern the difference between sexy and sexist. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #77

What is the difference between sexy and sexist? flying rabbit Sep 2014 #79

Look the words up in the dictionary. nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #109

"I can discern the difference between sexy and sexist" Veilex Sep 2014 #115

Oh yes, I forget, you are arbiter of right and wrong... Veilex Sep 2014 #82

And since we're looking into the definition of the two words, let me google that for you: Veilex Sep 2014 #84

I'm not telling anyone what they should find sexy. I am just pointing out sexism. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #93

"If you find sexist depictions of women sexy, that's you're business. " Veilex Sep 2014 #96

Nope, Spiderwoman does not "equal sexism." But the Milo Manara version is sexist. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #100

I think you are just looking for something to be outraged about. flying rabbit Sep 2014 #112

Indeed Veilex Sep 2014 #116

Not at all. I clicked on the OP expecting to agree with it. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #124

When you focus your outrage on an exceptionally small segment of comic books Veilex Sep 2014 #113

Please look up "duplicitous" in Webster's. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #122

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2014 #131

�"It's pretty sad to see so-called adults arguing over such ridiculous things" SunSeeker Sep 2014 #133

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2014 #134

Becasue they are SUPER HEREOS, DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #183

I don't expect a superhero to look normal. But why can't she look strong like Spiderman? SunSeeker Sep 2014 #187

Because she's not She-Hulk DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #194

Not Hulk huge, but strong like Spiderman. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #195

No she didn't. DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #203

I would kill for spiderman's definition Ash_F Sep 2014 #68

I know flying rabbit Sep 2014 #80

Women have more pronounced rear ends than men. Thats life. 7962 Sep 2014 #128

The way Spiderwoman is drawn does not reflect real life. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #132

Of course they do. Look at female tennis players, volleyball, MMA, ect. 7962 Sep 2014 #138

No, Spiderman is not in "pretty much the same pose." SunSeeker Sep 2014 #162

No muscle mass... DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #191

I didn't make her out as a helpless waif. Milo Marana did. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #192

it's a comic book right? is there not supposed to be creative expression? samsingh Sep 2014 #152

Of course. And am I not allowed to comment when that expression is offensive? nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #159

and i'm offended when there is to much offense taken. samsingh Sep 2014 #177

Why? nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #178

Calling that the "exact same pose" as the person in the OP video does is inaccurate. Gormy Cuss Sep 2014 #7

Exactly. I just posted pretty much the same comment before seeing yours. nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #10

Maybe she has gas. Eleanors38 Sep 2014 #107

Maybe she has Manara. Gormy Cuss Sep 2014 #171

My opinion is... TheVisitor Sep 2014 #153

In searching for that one cover image, I looked over hundreds of others. NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #154

No one is regulating positions. We're just objecting to the degrading depiction. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #168

Agree to disagree... TheVisitor Sep 2014 #175

+1 Veilex Nov 2014 #262

Billo is a vagina... Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2014 #2

That was too funny Grassy Knoll Sep 2014 #13

Yeah... Veilex Sep 2014 #71

Achilles would make quick work of these philistines jberryhill Sep 2014 #4

Neither of those statues show men swaybacked with their butts in the air. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #39

The only thing degrading about Sipderwoman's pose Veilex Sep 2014 #72

No, it was Milo Manara who turned Spiderwoman into porn meat. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #78

"I didn't sexualize her" Veilex Sep 2014 #83

I am not ignoring anything. The Spiderman pose is not same nor similar to the Spiderwoman pose. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #87

"I am not ignoring anything." Veilex Sep 2014 #90

"And you're refusing to acknowledge it because you won't listen." SunSeeker Sep 2014 #92

"Again, more projecting. " Hardly... Veilex Sep 2014 #98

You think the way Spiderman is portrayed is sexist? nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #101

You think the way Spiderman is portrayed isn't sexist? nt Veilex Sep 2014 #102

Not in any of the comics on this thread. Do you? nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #104

"Not in any of the comics on this thread" Veilex Sep 2014 #114

Please cite a post in this thread that shows Spiderman drawn in a sexist way. nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #119

The thumping music in the background was annoying Xipe Totec Sep 2014 #6

I thought that was the headboard in the next room. Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2014 #21

Snort! Xipe Totec Sep 2014 #56

Excellent piece. . . Journeyman Sep 2014 #9

The artist is the legendary Milo Manara. SansACause Sep 2014 #11

Milo is in desperate need of anatomy classes Warpy Sep 2014 #33

He's just copying himself SansACause Sep 2014 #62

Copying past artwork is an exceedingly common practice... Veilex Sep 2014 #85

The interesting thing here is that our culture, thanks largely to the catholic church... Veilex Sep 2014 #74

Feminists are not causing sex crimes. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #111

Umm... Veilex Sep 2014 #117

Dude, you keep saying you're "done" but you keep posting. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #118

"Dude, you keep saying you're "done" but you keep posting." Veilex Sep 2014 #120

Good. That means I'll never get you on a jury. nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #123

The key words are 'variant cover.' onehandle Sep 2014 #12

That is a classic spiderman pose. Ash_F Sep 2014 #16

I guess she's supposed to crawl up the side of a building side saddle. Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2014 #23

No, she's supposed to crawl up the side of the building the same way Spiderman does. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #28

That's how Spiderman does it.... Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2014 #35

Spiderman does not crawl swaybacked with his butt in the air. nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #38

Did you catch this? Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2014 #42

Yeah...they would NEVER place spiderman in a compromising position... Veilex Sep 2014 #86

That does not compare to Milo's Spiderwoman. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #89

Except for DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #185

Except that SunSeeker Sep 2014 #189

It's still a bog standard DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #200

It's always the same pose DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #201

It's not just me. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #205

Sure you are DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #227

I am not trying to "prevent" you or any adult from having "access" to porn. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #230

Then why DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #234

oy I don't get all the controversy over a comic book cover if folks want to get upset azurnoir Sep 2014 #20

More shocking is that supposedly progressive DUers don't see what is wrong with that cover. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #24

This very progressive DUer believes in equal treatment... Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2014 #26

This isn't about fear. This is about respect. nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #27

Maybe it's how you are raised.... Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2014 #36

This isn't about slut shaming a cartoon woman, it's about how a cartoonist portrays women. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #37

I thought the subliminal was the heart. Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2014 #43

"Why do female superheroes have to be put in porn poses?" Lizzie Poppet Sep 2014 #130

"Sexual attractiveness" is not the objection. It's the degrading, powerless pose of Spiderwoman. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #137

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2014 #142

Try doing anything with your head down, swaybacked, with butt cheeks spread open. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #145

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2014 #146

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2014 #140

The pose is degrading. You have a misogynistic view of what is "natural" for women. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #148

even more shocking... Veilex Sep 2014 #88

I am not ignoring Spiderman covers. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #91

Ahhhh so we're now moving the goal post Veilex Sep 2014 #94

You have yet to show a Spiderman pose in a Spiderman comic that warrants rebuke. nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #97

Thank you for proving my point. Veilex Sep 2014 #99

No one has proven your point. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #106

Indeed. Veilex Sep 2014 #121

Is the problem that it's too realistic, or too unrealistic? immoderate Sep 2014 #29

Sorry, cowboy, but the poses are nowhere near the same Warpy Sep 2014 #32

ISIS, and now this! Cayenne Sep 2014 #34

LMFAO ... hilarious Trajan Sep 2014 #40

It is not nudity or asses that is the problem. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #48

Then don't buy the comic Cayenne Sep 2014 #103

Of course. But I have a right to express my opinion. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #105

Whew, glad to hear it Cayenne Sep 2014 #110

ISIS or ASSIS? Eleanors38 Sep 2014 #108

That guy needs an eye exam BainsBane Sep 2014 #44

Is it a carbon copy jamzrockz Sep 2014 #45

Feminists have no problem with sex. It's sexism we object to. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #47

Not entirely jamzrockz Sep 2014 #49

Stop saying what feminists do not do BainsBane Sep 2014 #52

I am not talking about photoshopped images jamzrockz Sep 2014 #57

Wrong BainsBane Sep 2014 #63

WTF? etherealtruth Sep 2014 #58

Point way over your head treestar Sep 2014 #59

Feminists do not "have a problem with anything that is female that arouses straight men." SunSeeker Sep 2014 #65

Right, they have a problem because it's for men's enjoyment BainsBane Sep 2014 #50

"Women's" magazines treestar Sep 2014 #60

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2014 #141

The object is the comic book BainsBane Sep 2014 #143

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2014 #144

It obviously communicates enough BainsBane Sep 2014 #147

Didn't we go through this a few years ago? TlalocW Sep 2014 #51

It's not the "cling" of the costume. It's the pose. nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #67

The guy's not fooling himself Adenoid_Hynkel Sep 2014 #53

Wow. Now THAT is the same pose, waist up. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #66

You think explicit depictions of sexuality or nudity indicate perversion? Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #126

It's the pose, dude. It is not perverse to be turned on by the human body. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #135

So leaving aside a subjective disagreement on interpretation which is probably pointless to argue, Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #155

Why are you not more concerned with the impacts of degrading female images on 13 year olds? SunSeeker Sep 2014 #157

"the impacts of degrading female images on 13 year olds" - let's, shall we say, "unpack" that. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #167

Seriously, you don't think portraying women as sexual objects affects kids? SunSeeker Sep 2014 #169

More assumptions. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #170

It's a popular comic. I'd say a lot of kids are going to see it. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #172

As far as I'm concerned, there is at least one totally meaningless concept in your post. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #174

If this was a racist cover, no one would be saying no kids would be "impacted." SunSeeker Sep 2014 #176

And if it was a triple decker ice cream sundae, it would need to be eaten, or it would melt. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #179

It's nothing like racism because it's women being degraded. Who cares, amiright? SunSeeker Sep 2014 #180

Nope. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #188

Would you want your daughter in that position on a magazine cover? nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #190

My daughter would have to be a cartoon superhero. However, that cartoon superhero appears to be an Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #193

Yeah, I figured you wouldn't answer the question. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #196

I don't think it's degrading, no. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #197

I suppose Marvel will make money off this, with folks like you buying their porn comics. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #199

Yep. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #202

Good. nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #206

Innit? Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #208

You sure make a big fuss defending something you "don't give two shits for." nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #209

I'm defending the idea that the picture of spiderwoman's butt is not, actually, that big of a deal Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #211

You're defending selling a comic with a degrading rear penetration porn shot on the cover to kids. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #214

Right. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #217

No, there's a difference between disagreement and abuse. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #220

Again, there's no point in trying to argue over subjective interpretation, but you're wrong. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #221

Post 202. nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #222

Oh, right, I called you "Nostradamus", which is a well-known abusive insult. After, of course, you Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #223

Yes, it was mocking name-calling. After you asked, repeatedly, that I make a prediction. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #226

Right. You insist on making it personal because you seemingly can't deal with the fact Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #229

You obviously have plenty of time to keep badgering me with long-winded pointless posts. nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #232

Yep. Got nothin' but time. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #233

Still at this? DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #245

The guy must have some fetish for that bone/muscle BainsBane Sep 2014 #173

Her ass isn't bigger LuvLoogie Sep 2014 #54

Post removed Post removed Sep 2014 #55

"People were tripping over themselves to be offended" Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #125

Mods? merrily Sep 2014 #127

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

Yes, let's give Marvel an award for profiting off selling woman-degrading porn to 13-year-olds. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #136

LOL pipoman Sep 2014 #139

How old are you? nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #149

Old enough to know and be able to identify selective outrage when I see it... pipoman Sep 2014 #150

No, you apparently are not. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #158

Usually liberals are more tolerant of artistic license pipoman Sep 2014 #182

This isn't art for adults. It's a Spiderwoman comic for kids. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #184

Because DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #186

Have you been to comicon? The comic industry is driven not by kids, pipoman Sep 2014 #212

It's a rear penetration porn pose on the cover of a comic sold to kids. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #213

I suppose it depends on where your mind is when you look at it.. pipoman Sep 2014 #215

Yes, the nerve of me commenting on your post. On a discussion board. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #216

Lol...you are the one playing the victim. ..ffs pipoman Sep 2014 #218

The cover degrades women. As a woman, I am a victim of that. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #219

Yeah...you have been victimized by spiderman. .. pipoman Sep 2014 #236

No, Spiderman has nothing to do with this. nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #239

The truth DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #224

I refuse to accept lies. I'm not going to apologize for that. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #231

And yet DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #235

Other progressives and liberals get sick to fucking pipoman Sep 2014 #237

Are African American s victimized by Sambo comics? nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #240

"victimized"? Only if they allow themselves to be. pipoman Sep 2014 #243

Sambo you say? DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #246

I see. Racism is bad. Sexism not so much. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #247

Theres no DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #249

There's an AA man on this thread. He seems to get the sexism here. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #252

Still a false equivalence DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #255

I'm fucking sick of sexism. nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #241

Um, no again.... pipoman Sep 2014 #238

I see. You're one of those guys who MUST have the last word. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #242

No, I'm "one of those guys" who is going to point out that pipoman Sep 2014 #244

CONSERVATIVES are the biggest consumers of porn. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #248

LIBERALS defend freedom of speech pipoman Sep 2014 #250

Liberals defend human dignity. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #251

Lol...now a comic book has violated your "human dignity"? pipoman Sep 2014 #253

So--- which Presidential candidate in recent years was responsible for this quote: Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #256

No they don't DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #258

I don't think those studies "prove" what you think they do. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #254

Selection bias DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #257

Even better than those Drain-o ads that had "One Million Moms" so upset. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #156

Hey ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #151

True Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Sep 2014 #160

And most would argue ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #161

Obviously, the narrator thinks calling a man a vagina is a bigger insult. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #163

Actually I agree with the guy for the most part Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Sep 2014 #164

... SunSeeker Sep 2014 #165

My point, exactly. eom. 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #166

Ok, so what's the big deal? DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #181

The big deal is that people don't think it's a big deal, which PROVES it's a big deal. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #198

It's DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #204

Im kidding. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #207

Reply SecureExpert Sep 2014 #210

Stupidest controversy ever. Anyone offended needs to get over themselves. Darkhawk32 Sep 2014 #259

haha, the guy in this video's great big lu Sep 2014 #260

I take it DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #261

A BIG shout out to........ Darb Nov 2014 #263