odditycollector | 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.

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

This would have been easier if I could draw.

edit