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

Re: Looks good to me

[odditycollector.livejournal.com]

I can say this with some sense of confidence because we gay men do this to each other in our erotic art
Well, yes, I would assume so. And I don't much care for the personalities of the characters in downloaded porn, either. Erotic art is *not* the same thing as mainstream media, which comics claim to be.

Sorry, that's just the way nature made us
Yeah, no. "Men are just *like that* and women should just shut up and deal," is *not* an acceptable excuse. It's insulting to women, it's insulting to *men*, and there's a ten minute rant here I'm not going to bother with over because (a) it'll just piss me off, especially when (b) I suspect I'd just be wasting my time.

I suspect more men *won't even notice* the blatant objectification than will care - it's not like T&A are a rationed resource in comics. But covers like that make it hard for many women, and I hope, men as well not to feel uncomfortable.

Hell, I get worried when my boyfriends don't objectify me...
There's a difference between "Yes, honey, I *know* you love me for my sense of humour, but don't you love my for my ass too?" and the blanket objectification of the *idea* of what you are, or even of a group you identify as.

I'm not sure how aware you are of fandom, but I know there are a *lot* of gay men who have problems with the fetishization as part of the (well, one of the) "Slasher" mentality. (The: "Oh, he's pretty. So's he! They should totally fuck!" as squealed by (often) young teenage girls.)

Perhaps the perspective of a gay man can help
I doubt it. I don't think I need any "help" here at all. This was, yes, an exercise in switching perspective, but it seems to me you've missed the point.

Re: Looks good to me

[(Anonymous)]

I doubt it. I don't think I need any "help" here at all. This was, yes, an exercise in switching perspective, but it seems to me you've missed the point.

Yes, yes, you don't have a problem with male sexuality, so long as it's on your terms. Art should therefore downplay it, even when it's meant to appeal primarily to men. Gotcha.

Life must be one long disappointment for you, yes?

Re: Looks good to me

[(Anonymous)]

It has nothing to do with male sexuality in and of itself and everything to do with women's very identity being stripped down, made nonexistent, for the sole purpose of exciting male sexuality and giving men power. I'm not a woman, I'm a piece of meat, an object, a brainless fuckhole. I don't get a say in it and I'm dehumanised and abused because of it.

But you're a man, so of course it's all about you, isn't it?

Re: Looks good to me

[pervyficgirl.livejournal.com]

Most importantly of all, why in the holy hell should comics ever be "meant to appeal primarily to men"? Particularly when you're talking about Wonder Woman?