Which is what I said in the first place. Intent and effect are different in each case. The Wonder Woman image is blatantly sexual and pandering (soft-core porn); the Superman image is not. I also said I wasn't arguing the main point being discussed.

What wasn't clear was that I was talking about the notion of abstraction itself as applied to discussions or critiques of how women are portrayed in media, which was the tangent I wandered off onto. The idea had been asserted that pretty much any abstracted image of a woman is a type of violence towards women, because it reduces them from being a complete entity to a mere body part, regardless of the sexual nature of the depiction. Usually it is overtly sexual but that wasn't necessary to the critique. So, yeah, I was getting into an academic issue which is related to the theme being discussed but not central to it.

So everyone agrees that the Miller image is porn masquerading as a comic book cover. I was just wondering if the posts that approved of the counter-examples for the wrong reasons ("ooh, baby" and "I'd buy that!")were meant to be ironic imitations of the male response to the Miller image or were sincere. Is the point that some of you want equal-opportunity porny comics or just that it has no actual purpose of any kind in an adventure-based medium?