odditycollector: Supergirl hovering in black silhouette except for the red crest. Cape fluttering. Background is a roiling, raining sky. (Default)
odditycollector ([personal profile] odditycollector) wrote2006-04-19 08:34 pm

This would have been easier if I could draw.

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.

[livejournal.com profile] 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.


free hit counter

(Anonymous) 2006-05-11 10:03 pm (UTC)(link)
Random Fanboy was probably playing devil's advocate, and he brings up a salient point which was dismissed outright. If any image which abstracts a particular body part out of the the context of the greater whole reduces a human to the quality with which that body part is associated, then that is what happens when you show Superman's chest in an isolated view. I'm not arguing intention or affect, because yeah, that Wonder Woman cover is blatant cheesecake, and there's no sexual subtext to the Superman instance. I'm just wondering if you could say that an image showing only Superman's chest reduces him from a complex human being into a typification of brutish male force. (OK, I know technically he's not human.)

Not trying to refute the overall point being made, just quibbling over how this particular methodology is used sometimes. Abstracted female body parts or unrealistic, idealized representations = trivialization or dehumanization, whereas abstracted male body parts or unrealistic, idealized representations = not relevant to the topic at hand.

edit

(Anonymous) 2006-05-12 08:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Hey! After re-reading some of the other comments I don't know if objectification in itself is supposed to be the villain here or just the lack of parity in the objectifying business.

Does anybody actually mean it un-ironically you say you approve of and enjoy the men depicted like this? Are the images themselves sexually appealing or is it just that the tables are turned and men are now the passive creatures on display, putting you in the position of control? Or is that a turn-on in itself?

Also, I submit that there might also be a reason why female sexuality is displayed so blatantly and almost farcically exaggerated almost everywhere. There's the ingrained cultural assumption which most men, and ESPECIALLY fanboys, have internalized, which is that women probably don't want to have sex with you, unless it's unmistakably expressed otherwise. Hence the need to create these depictions of female receptiveness like the Miller cover. In a certain sense, a female must be displaying herself sexually to be considered a sex object, because otherwise the default assumption is that she's not interested. The binary opposition here is "she accepts me/ she rejects me," with the latter being the usual case. So we make images of willing women to compensate.

On the other hand, I think there's a general cultural assumption that for women, a man will always be willing to have sex with you, anytime, anywhere. So a display of male passivity/ receptiveness is redundant in itself. That's why the beefcake covers have a hint of irony and ridiculousness to them, and no one's responded to the "ooh, baby! I want that!" comments in a negative fashion. To attempt to create portrayals of men as sexual objects fails because, in the same sense as before, men are already sexual objects, already available if a woman desires. No need for outward displays of sexual receptiveness. The binary opposition here is "I accept him/ I reject him." So any image of a man is already an image of a willing man.

So, in summation, there's that.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2006-05-13 15:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2006-05-13 15:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2006-05-13 22:26 (UTC) - Expand

Oh WOW

[identity profile] figbash.livejournal.com 2006-05-12 02:54 am (UTC)(link)
I was pointed here by a friends lj, but I wanted to let you know that this post made my day! Would you mind if I made an icon from your Superman cover?

Re: Oh WOW

[identity profile] odditycollector.livejournal.com 2006-05-13 11:05 pm (UTC)(link)
Hi! Go ahead with the icon, (and thanks for letting me know. Made me grin).

[identity profile] lots42.livejournal.com 2006-05-12 11:11 am (UTC)(link)
Good lord.

Frank Miller always drew impossible babes, but at least he -used- to draw sexy impossibillities. This, whatever it is, looks like some axe murderer tried to glue together human bodyparts and animal bones in order to make a new human.

[identity profile] little-bounce.livejournal.com 2006-05-12 05:10 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh man- I gotta get me some of that Robin-ass... When are they going to have pix like that on the covers of the comix I buy instead of... well, this (http://members.tripod.com/~hell_hole/fathom/fat_preview.jpg). They even recently did a Bikini Special- and I've stopped buying the series.

*swung by from Feministing (http://www.feministing.org)*

[identity profile] odditycollector.livejournal.com 2006-05-13 11:07 pm (UTC)(link)
*eyes the artist on that cover*

Aw, man. Turner. So much sympathy.

[identity profile] vejiicakes.livejournal.com 2006-05-13 04:21 am (UTC)(link)
My present to you, late as it is, you bastion of wonderfulness:

http://vejiita4eva.livejournal.com/110862.html

[identity profile] veronica-rich.livejournal.com 2006-05-13 05:59 am (UTC)(link)
To be fair on the Batman cover, Joel Schmumacher *did* try to do his part with the third and fourth movies. Can we say "molded nipples" and "huge plastic codpieces" anyone? *snerk*

And yet, they weren't cinematic masterpieces! I wonder why ...

[identity profile] odditycollector.livejournal.com 2006-05-13 11:09 pm (UTC)(link)
Hee. I've never seen them, but I recall the recent, traumatized cries...

"BATMAN IS NOT GAY! ARGGHH!"

[identity profile] jij.livejournal.com 2006-05-13 12:50 pm (UTC)(link)
Argh, there have been so many comments, but I had to add mine. I had seen the pictures at www.pandagon.net and laughed over them, but then I came here and the CAPTIONS, the CAPTIONS are so perfect! I just finished reading the script for ASBAR and like you I could. not. believe. that they would publish something that transparent, that revealing of what a sick, weird man Frank Miller is. My husband was reading with me and he was like, "Jeez, Miller thanks all his readers are men...and that we're all a bunch of moronic horndogs!"

Love the clenched butt muscles. Miller's Batman: clenched jaw, clenched buttocks.

[identity profile] apricot-tree.livejournal.com 2006-05-13 03:43 pm (UTC)(link)
Bwhahaha! That you this is both funny and informative. Please - no G'nort.

[identity profile] odditycollector.livejournal.com 2006-05-15 07:25 pm (UTC)(link)
Aw man. *There's* an image.

No, I think if there are any G'nort-ass-shots out there, the only possible explanation is that he took them himself. And mailed them to Guy.

[identity profile] ikkin.livejournal.com 2006-05-13 09:20 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh my God. You're my hero.

I'm adding you, twice.

[identity profile] apricot-tree.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 01:20 am (UTC)(link)
I just went to take a look at the FM cover. Wow - that's not just objectification, it's wretchedly drawn objectification.

(Anonymous) 2006-05-15 09:01 am (UTC)(link)
The reason that men are not drawn this way is obvious right in this thread - it's unwanted. The only people it could appeal to is gays.

Women are drawn this way because it's wanted. It appeals to the masses, both male and female. They are not being objectified, they are being idolized.

[identity profile] odditycollector.livejournal.com 2006-05-15 07:20 pm (UTC)(link)
They are not being objectified, they are being idolized.

Have you thought about getting into the church building business?

"And when the sun sets in the evening, the light through the stained glass window of Mother Mary's ass suffuses the prayer area in a comforting glow..."

(no subject)

[personal profile] brownbetty - 2006-08-18 18:56 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2006-05-15 09:53 am (UTC)(link)
You don't have a 'strong point', you have no point at all. You are a hypocrite.

If 'objectification' is as bad and insulting as you say, why would almost every single female be consciously objectifying herself with her choise in clothes ? If it's bad, why do they do it to themselves ?

Like you do yourself, your jeans pants must be very snug on your ass. There is no doubt about that. This makes the whole thread pointless and cynical, since you actually use the thing you pretend to be upset about for personal benefit.

Every single actress, singer, whatever, use sex. Are they being objectified ? Poor objectified victims, with millions of american dollars in their bank accounts and a personal airplane.

Women use sex to succeed in life. Sex gives women power. It's a simple formula. Sex is used in comics and ads, because it's the strongest thing. It makes it sell. A comic that had superman's ass on the cover wouldn't sell.

Sex must be the strongest force in the world after money.
And women own it.

So what are you whining about ? That your gender is considered sexy and beautiful ?

[identity profile] quintessentialp.livejournal.com 2007-09-18 06:07 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh man... I shouldn't reply, but I will...

Walking around college campus today, I see a number of girls dressed as I am, in not particularly tight pants and either a loose t-shirt or a sweatshirt. But you know what? YOU don't see them. Most guys don't. They see the sorority girls in the mini-skirts and tight tops with their tummies showing.

Do I care that guys don't notice me? No, because I have one and I'm very happy with him. But if I was looking for someone, I'd need to dress up just to be noticed by a large number of guys to whom I am invisible without my curves. :P Including you. Epic win, sir.

As for my gender being "sexy and beautiful," yours is too. However, the guys who present themselves as most appealing sexually are frequently branded as homosexuals. Most straight guys, faced with such a designation, would go back to dressing in shapeless sacks. Since so few guys make an effort to dress in a sexually appealing way, there's no pressure to do so in order to become "visible." This does not lessen the pressure on females.

Your stupidity and blindness sickens me.

[identity profile] supacat.livejournal.com 2006-05-15 11:24 am (UTC)(link)
You win at life.

(Anonymous) 2006-05-15 12:22 pm (UTC)(link)
Wah. Insult.

(Anonymous) 2006-05-15 12:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Image
This is funny in a thread about how focusing on a body part reduces a person to that body part. ._.

[identity profile] onceupon.livejournal.com 2006-05-15 04:05 pm (UTC)(link)
You know, I hear people all the time try to defend the covers and spreads that are nothing but softcore. This is absolutely where I'm going to point people when they don't understand why it's an issue, when they think that looking at women only in that way isn't a problem.
(deleted comment)

(no subject)

[identity profile] onceupon.livejournal.com - 2006-05-15 20:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2006-05-15 21:05 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Thanks for not feeding the Troll

(Anonymous) - 2006-05-15 21:07 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Thanks for not feeding the Troll

(Anonymous) - 2006-05-15 21:10 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Thanks for not feeding the Troll

(Anonymous) - 2006-05-15 22:09 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] puddingcat.livejournal.com 2006-05-15 04:17 pm (UTC)(link)
(Here via [livejournal.com profile] the_xtina, who was here via someone else).

I love them. Green Lantern sent coke down my nose.

Unfortunately, when I've pointed this stuff out to male comic-reading friends (granted, they were 19 at the time), they grinned & said, "So? I don't care!". Effectively, they were getting what they wanted, so why should they care if female readers were being short-changed and objectified?

No; none of them did have a girlfriend...

(Anonymous) 2006-05-15 08:30 pm (UTC)(link)
If objectification is bad, why do females objectify themselves.
Can someone answer??

[identity profile] alexisallen.livejournal.com 2006-05-16 02:55 pm (UTC)(link)
Because they live in a culture where women are routinely exploited, where it's considered normal to be obsessed with their physical attributes and peculiar to not. It's horrifying that you're implying that women are to blame for this.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2006-05-16 17:39 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] sammka.livejournal.com - 2006-05-17 02:07 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] librisia.livejournal.com 2006-05-15 11:04 pm (UTC)(link)
bwahahahaha!

I <3 you.

[identity profile] zandperl.livejournal.com 2006-05-16 12:10 am (UTC)(link)
Ugh. I'm afraid I agree with Western culture's ideal that men are not physically beautiful. Those are gross! And quite effective.

[identity profile] alexisallen.livejournal.com 2006-05-16 03:09 pm (UTC)(link)
On the flip side, how about the rapid success of the shoujo market for women, filled to the brim with beautiful boys who are as androgynous as they are hopelessly attractive?

And if you're going to try to justify this, what you say is that these are drawings, and fantasies, and boys are smart enough to know the difference between a drawing of boobs and a real girl. That's the argument I'd pose, anyway.

(no subject)

[identity profile] alexisallen.livejournal.com - 2006-05-16 15:13 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] zandperl.livejournal.com - 2006-05-16 21:31 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] fickle-goddess.livejournal.com 2006-05-16 02:29 am (UTC)(link)
...Wow. XD Way to make your point!

Mind if I link to this in the next post I make?

[identity profile] odditycollector.livejournal.com 2006-05-17 05:14 pm (UTC)(link)
Thanks!

And sure, go ahead - the internet is for porn links!

[identity profile] alexisallen.livejournal.com 2006-05-16 02:47 pm (UTC)(link)
Green Lantern is hawt. I am totally buying that comic.

[identity profile] njtech.livejournal.com 2006-05-16 09:02 pm (UTC)(link)
you win the internet. awesome covers

[identity profile] sammka.livejournal.com 2006-05-17 01:53 am (UTC)(link)
There's a gay bar here in DC called the Green Lantern. When they find this, they are so going to put your first picture up on their wall. Just so you know!

Well done!

[identity profile] jex-kerome.livejournal.com 2006-05-17 10:55 am (UTC)(link)
Kudos for making the perfect Obvious stick to beat horny blind fanboys over the head with. Now to unleash these on some people I know...

Page 5 of 31