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.
Yeah right....
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.