This would have been easier if I could draw.

[odditycollector]

I really should know better, but I clicked on a link to the DC message boards, topic of the new Frank Miller cover.

In summary... this is why I’m going to stay way the hell over here okay thanks. However, one exchange did catch my attention and would not let me shake it as it might have a sane person.

maelithil:
Depicting [women] as an ass, a pair of tits, some gorgeous thighs is doing them a disservice. Distilling them into nothing but their sexual attributes is objectifying. And that's exactly what this cover does.

Random Fanboy:
And notice that Superman's chest is OFTEN a whole panel unto itself. Not Superman fighting the bad guy. Not Superman standing full figure. Superman's chest. Just his chest. His huge, massive, S-draped, extraterrestrially muscular chest. Is Superman being objectified? Is he being used? Should I cry for Superman?

And. Just. What? This is the counterexample?

But! Maybe it’s not that his logic is just that scary. Maybe it's hard to understand what she’s talking about because it really, honestly is that there’s no comparable example featuring a male denizen of the DCU. I mean, even the occasional Nightwing crotch shot *tries* to have context.

Obviously, something had to be done. For The Good Of Fandom.

Luckily, much like Miller, I have no shame.

 
Totally Appropriate Covers (with bonus, never before seen script excerpts!)

 



Hal’s flying away from us through a generic starfield, nothing interesting to see except him. Have him wriggle around, giving us a good shot of his package. Add some details, something fancy for the fanboys to drool over, but don’t let it draw attention away from the point of the cover – that Kyle has nothing, NOTHING, on my boy Hal.

 



Be careful with this one – we don’t want Supes to come off as too powerful, too imposing. Maybe have him lean a bit, off balance, the better to show off his *well filled* briefs. He's fiddling with the waist line, such a cock *heh* tease. He knows he’s got what we want, and if we turn the cover, he’ll let us have it.

 



Well, we’ve done just about every variation on the theme by now, so let’s go back to the basics: Black on black, a full cover shot of Batman’s ass. Add in the utility belt for colour – give it that Sin City look. Show me thick, powerful legs under that latex or whatever the hell he wears. Clenched butt muscles. Make it obvious this is no BatGIRL we’re talking about.

Comments

[petronelle.livejournal.com]

You are brilliant.

[sigelphoenix.livejournal.com]

Here from a friend's LJ. Hilarious and biting commentary.

[bugchicklv.livejournal.com]

Here by way of another LJ friend commodoremarie and I just have to say that if the comic covers actually looked like the ones you've created, I might consider buying one (or twelve).

OMG, especially the Green Lantern One. *lick*

(icon usage to objectify male...and cause he was hot).

[greenstripes.livejournal.com]

Hey, you don't know me, but as a girl who loves comics, thinks Frank Miller has lost his shit and is sick of explaining why these two facts are not fundamentally incompatible, I would just like to say that this is hilarious.

[commodoremarie.livejournal.com]

Wonderful, wonderful post. Especially love the Green Lantern cover you did. Definitely saving the link!

Ah, but have you seen the one cover that might, perhaps, strike back?



From the recent Rawhide Kid (http://www.universohq.com/quadrinhos/2004/imagens/western_rawhidekidmarvelmax.jpg), a supposedly gay comic. Not that it was at all, mind, but at least it explains the cover art. The wonderful, I-want--to-frame-this-and-put-it-on-my-bedroom-wall cover art.

[skadi.livejournal.com]

I found this through backward_heels.

Awesome. Just awesome.

[fhwqhgads.livejournal.com]

This post was excellent.

What people don't understand about the whole "But men are over-muscled and unrealistic in comics, too!" arguement, is that women disproportionate and objectified is a male power fantasy. Men who are chisled and adonis like is ALSO a male power fantasy. So it's hard to say men that are objectified in comics, when it's MEN for the most part who get off (figuratively) on their appearance.

-casey-

[dryponder.livejournal.com]

HIGH FIVE.

Looks good to me

[(Anonymous)]

Perhaps the perspective of a gay man can help. The phenomenon to which you object has little to do with women, and everything to do with male sexuality by and of itself. I can say this with some sense of confidence because we gay men do this to each other in our erotic art, in much the same way straight male artists fetishize the specific body parts of the objects of their desires.

For men, hunger for an object of sexual desire can best be compared to hunger for, say, a plate of food -- a close-up picture of dripping spaghetti sauce has much the same effect in drawing men into an Italian restaurant as that picture of Wonder Woman's ass will in drawing male readers to Miller and Lee's comic.

Sorry, that's just the way nature made us. Men and women are wired differently. How you deal with this is up to you, but as a relatively disinterested observer, I have to tell you: Every time I see complaints like the one found in this thread, I find myself thinking, "Thank goodness I'm gay." Again.

Hell, I get worried when my boyfriends don't objectify me...

[jcfiala.livejournal.com]

My wife would like to sign up for your newsletter. :)

[christymarx.livejournal.com]

Oh, dear ghods, I love it. Thank you.

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

THANK YOU for making it unignorable.

(here from divalea)

[uminomamori.livejournal.com]

Wonder woman? has an INTERESTING rib cage there....

[hoperomantic.livejournal.com]

You demonstrated the counter-argument so well with this. It is an excellent post and very effective and well executed. Thank you for creating this post.

Here via Lea's blog...

[vogelein.livejournal.com]

You do, in fact win the internets. Well done, and a singular encapsulation of everything that goes through my mind when I see a cover like the one you're lampooning.

[badgerbag.livejournal.com]

Really... please put these on tshirts. Goodstorm (http://goodstorm.com) has a cheap but good quality setup, way better than cafepress. And lots of women's styles in shirts!

[ficbyzee.livejournal.com]

Holy shit. This is amazing and brilliant.

[homz.livejournal.com]

I thought I should say that I loved this and friended you.

You remind me of a friend who I wish wrote more on his livejournal, and that's never a bad thing.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Wo, Batman's ass is hot!

[katarik.livejournal.com]

Dear God PERFECT. *worships you*

[silk-noir.livejournal.com]

Yeah! Action comics! Now, what would DC stand for if it were your own line? (Let me tell you, you cheered up the mommy of someone who was teething all night.)

You are my hero!!

[(Anonymous)]

I absolutely adore the comic covers! ADORE them!!!

The only thing that makes me sad is the fact that if people saw those covers, they wouldn't equate them to "Oh, this is payback for when FM did that T&A cover" .. no, no.. they'd think, "Oh great, they've made Superman, Batman & Lantern gay." It's all about you men! If it's hot chicks it must be geared toward hetero guys, if it's hot guys it must be geared toward homosexual guys. Where are all of the hot guys for the WOMEN I ask you?!

**grumbles and goes back to reading her manga**

Yeah right....

[(Anonymous)]

Those examples of male/female exploitation are ridiculously unequal. I have never seen a comic that had the focus purely on a female characters genitalia, in the same manner you've depicted theses male characters bulges.

The one cover that does have a good argument is the Batman buttshot one. It's zoomed in, defined, and focused to a exaggerated degree on the ass more than the Miller cover, but is the one that came closest to your point. If you want to make this cover an equivalent, make it a shoulders to thigh shot. If Millers cover was cropped strictly around WW's ass your comparison would have been more valid. Millers cover is designed to entice the reader into checking out the book by showing the different take on WW's costume, in a sexy, (though anatomically garbled) pose.

I can understand your reasons to rant and I'm not saying there isn't any exploitation going on, but these example covers have gone to the XXX extreme to inflate the point and then are being compared as "equal", which is complete utter bullshit.

What I find interesting also, is that your crew of fellow "enraged" female comic goers are'nt offended by exploitation, just female exploitation (The idealized female form makes you see red, but the idealized male form what? Just makes sense to you). I guess male characters can be exploited just fine it seems (Playboy bad, Playgirl good?). Go ahead and make some more licking noises and "I'd buy that!" comments if you like here now.

So exploitation is fine as long as it's non female exploitation I guess right. Unfortunately there's the whole thing of the direct comic book market is CREATED for and AIMED at the 15-35 year old male fanboy who is the highest consumer of this type of material. You can rant and bitch and moan all you like, till your blue in the face it's not going to go away. Do you really think posting snide remarks and exaggerated comparisons is going to get you your Batman bulge cover, while pacifying your despised, shotgun rant inducing, female T & A from the field.

Where it's the norm to have idealized people, with painted on outfits, viewed in non moving, varying angled panels, I must say you picked quite the media to delve into if such things truely bother you.

Or is it that it's fun to complain and rant about stuff you have no control over, are'nt the target audience for, and are'nt a fan of.

Excuse me now as I go off to rant on the gay porn message boards, about the unrealistic depiction of the average male.

[(Anonymous)]

that's hot as hell! I'd freakin' love to these comics!

[purly.livejournal.com]

That's terrifying.