Women of Marvel, featuring TITS

[stubbleupdate]

I commented on NSD earlier about Marvel's Year of Women. Part of that includes the two part Women of Marvel series, collecting stories previously published on Marvel.com

The cover's got its stars in burlesque gear and inside... it's got tits.




Uhhh... a pinup? By Greg Land? Why not just pay the strippers to wear the costumes themselves?

And then Black Cat's tits fight the tits of Satan's Daughter.




I'll probably give this one a miss.

Though I will say that the Enchantress does do rather well out of these Marvel women stories. I've not seen her in continuity much, but this year, she's been dotted around in lots of different places.

Comments

[whitesycamore]

I'm pretty sure the only people who say that have never actually seen a sexualised image of a man. That's my only explanation. I have never, ever seen a group of male characters drawn in a way equivalent to this in any mainstream superhero comic. And dammit, I've been paying attention.

[perletwo]

.....Is it wrong that I kinda want a sexualized-men equivalent to this now? or that I'd probably buy it?

[valtyr]

You might enjoy this.

[perletwo]

That's in the ballpark, yes. But I was thinking more along the lines of, say, "Luke, Tony, Steve and Clint must go undercover as Chippendale's Dancers!" and shake what Mama gave 'em for an entire issue, for some plausible reason.

[liara_shadowsong]

I would buy that. I would probably buy multiple copies of that, and distribute the duplicates to my friends (or just keep them all for myself...). ^___^

[bradhanon]

It's not quite equivalent, but I do edit this magazine...

[whitesycamore]

That magazine looks like it's falling into the same trap almost all erotica aimed at women does - the photos are all so sappy and soft it ends up completely desexualised. Where's the spark, the edge? It's like "non-threatening boys" marketed to adult women.

The people behind that magazine really need to spend more time researching women's self-made erotica/fan-art, etc, to get the aesthetic down.

[bradhanon]

Criticism noted. As a matter of fact, the woman who took those photos has been involved in women's erotica for fifteen years via slash fandom, but I do agree that we could use a bit more "edge", as you put it, in the second issue. We work from the stories that our (female) authors write, and I've been asking for more explicit scenes of nudity for us to shoot for issue two. I apologize if this sounds too defensive; just trying to honestly acknowledge and engage with your legitimate critique. :)

[whitesycamore]

It does bother me how all "tasteful" nudity needs to be photographed in black and white for some reason (and also how all nudity aimed at women must be tasteful in the first place).

And those particular photos just aren't very good, to be blunt. They're stiff and posed looking, and the facial expressions are obviously fake. I think you'd be better off getting a good artist to illustrate the stories.

[dejadrew]

Seriously. I want to show those people a stack of gay porn comics and smutty josei manga. "THIS! THIS is what sexualized images of men look like! As drawn BY people who are sexually attracted to men, FOR people who are sexually attracted to men, with the intention of turning on people who are sexually attracted to men. Do the men in superhero comics look like this? Pose like this? Have art focusing on these portions of their anatomy? NO. Because they are NOT SEXUALIZED. RAAAAAARGH."

[whitesycamore]

TRUTH RAGE.

I really need to set up a web page filled with examples of sexualised man-drawings and link to it (along with your rant) whenever someone says that men in comics are objectified too.

[northstarfan]

Send them to Patrick Fillion's website. They'll deserve it.

[wasabi.livejournal.com]

Sigh. It's embarrassing to think I liked Fillion's work fifteen years ago. Then I grew up and discovered y'know, real people, exhibiting real sexuality.

[droolfangrrl]

I don't have time to look for it, but some one had done a fan remake of the book that's drawing women the marvel way, only it's drawing men the marvel way, using the same guidelines they have for the female characters.

[skalja]

I don't have a link but I remember that! It was amusing.

FOUND IT!

[droolfangrrl]

http://vito-excalibur.livejournal.com/114588.html

"IM IN UR STUDI0 DRAWIN UR D00DZ" aka the most awesome parody of "Wizard's How to Draw: Heroic Anatomy" with the genders swapped, but the style the same.

Re: FOUND IT!

[skalja]

Ahahaha, yes. What a classic. :D

Re: FOUND IT!

[liara_shadowsong]

OMG I love that remake. Love it. Stumbled onto it while looking for a link to help me draw more action-y poses of a realistically-athletic woman being badass (I wanted to draw a character with realistic female proportions swinging a sword properly, among other things, and didn't want to go searching for stills of Xena and Buffy and such to try to draw from, or try to take timed photos of myself swinging a broom around - I'm not athletic, and I'm not sure how much I remember from the handful of stage combat classes I took years ago). This amused me greatly. I was going to link to it if you hadn't done so already.

[skalja]

The people who say cheesecake/beefcake is equal opportunity are the same people who freaked out over Crotchgate 07 (link slightly nsfw).

[cleome45]

I think you may be right, actually. They see Mike Grell's Warlord, or whatever, and say See? Lookit all that bare skin, Ladies! They don't/won't get that it's not just about bare skin, but about the character's personality (or lack of same) as well.

Not to mention that characters like Warlord are still comparably rare, and limited to specific genres (or a certain milieu, if one's feeling pretentious). Mike Grell didn't dress Jon Sable for work the way he dressed Warlord. But for most female characters in comics exposed skin is the rule, not the exception. The personality and background doesn't suggest the look. The look comes first, and usually has zero to do, logically, with the personality and background of the woman character in question.