Offended? Tell Marvel.
I don’t care if I get a rep as a “Feminized Male” for this post, I need to get something off of my chest.
First, go here. I won’t have the image display here because, frankly, I believe it to be offensive (some may consider Not Safe for Work).
I may have found the MJ statue a trifle “off”, but this isn’t a trifle “off”… this is full-on offensive. This can’t be fobbed off as “playful” or “silly” – this is a cover glorifying the victimization of woman. Even if one does not know that this is in a style reminiscent of “tentacle rape” pornography (why-oh-why did I know that?), the image is far, far from innocent.
Examine it for a moment with me, will you?
First ignore the ridiculously cartoonish body-types (an issue I have with this series to begin with – if the Heroes for Hire are not aliens, then there should be several exposes nipples).
Heck, let’s ignore the long phallus dripping clear liquid onto the Black Cat’s chest.
Discount that this book is rated “ages nine and up”.
Forget the fact that the three women on the cover (Black Cat, Misty Knight, and Colleen Wing), are supposed to be tough-as-nails-don’t-need-no-man-to-rescue-me women and instead of being shown as such are shown as whimpering damsels in distress. Leave alone the leering, glowing-eyed spectators.
You know what my biggest problem with this cover is?
There are male members of Heroes for Hire, You see the arm of one (Shang Chi, Master of Kung Fu) in this shot. Yet you don’t see him playing the victim. He’s in the back, where we can’t see him. The female team members are all twisted and contorted to present their tortured forms for the reader. There’s even a fourth female member whose breasts are showing (with a few wisps of hair, but hey, they managed to get her breasts in the shot! Good job!).
That’s what annoys me. The fact that you would never, ever see Marvel or DC make a cover like this with a male protagonist. Yes, a male hero may be shown in peril, but his face will be defiant. He won’t be shown as submissive. He won’t be shown as a victim. He’ll be shown as a Tough Guy who will Escape Any Minute.
They wouldn’t draw him on the cover as the impending victim of some unnamed torture, his secondary sexual characteristics on display, and covered in an unnamed translucent liquid, as people leer in the background. They just wouldn’t.
But hey, women? Fair game.
I’m reading some fairly weak defenses of this cover already. One person said “Well, mainstream magazines have fairly raunchy covers too.” Really? Find me one mainstream magazine – and no, if you hide it under your mattress it’s not mainstream – that would show an impending rape on their cover. Really. Because depending on how you look at this cover, the ladies are about to become victims or already have been. C’mon, show me. Show me a cover that features a cowering woman with her chest covered in an almost-clear fluid.
In fact, I challenge you to show me a mainstream magazine that shows women being victimized in any way on the cover. Lots of skin? Sure. Highly sexualized? Absolutely? Victimized? No. No magazine that isn’t kept in a black wrapper would have that. Even most “Gentleman’s Magazines” wouldn’t have such covers.
Comics have plenty of victimization of women going on, but this is just… blatant. It was bad enough when rape was being used as a throwaway-plot point in Identity Crises. It was worse when we got to hear the same character extolling the virtues of rape. Now we’re basically putting it right on the cover.
I’m not saying all comics have to be kid-friendly. I’m not even saying all super-hero comics do. I’m not saying we all need to bend over backwards so as to not offend someone. However, there’s such a thing as bending over backwards <b>to</b> offend people. There is simply no way that the cover is not offensive. None.
It’s time to say “enough”. Not just on blogs and forums. In the comic store. I ask any of you who would normally buy this comic to not buy this issue. Show Marvel that no, sex doesn’t always sell and yes, there is such a thing as bad publicity.
Marvel has a right to Free Speech, but so do we. Speak with your wallet, folks. Say no to this comic.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
I agree with every word. I couldn´t have said better.
I can´t believe there are people who do not see “nothing wrong” with it. They’re the same people that said they’re buying the MJ statue.
Yes, there are 30 year old + males who jerks off at comics females. And that´s sad/bizarre.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
The 90s gave us a lot of bad trends, but this is one of the absolute worst.
Bad enough that superheroines must now have size 0 waists and breasts that are each actually larger than their head (to swipe an old MARSHALL LAW jibe). Worse still is that they tend to either wear something akin to a bikini into battle, or else wear a costume so skin-tight, you can see the nipples (we never get Spider-Man nipplage, do we now?).
And, of course, there is the hideous tendency to make these women victims. It seems the stronger and more assertive they are, the more they’re debased and humiliated.
This isn’t the case universally, of course. But it happens often enough to make it a norm.
It used to be funny to crack that the writers and (especially) the artists obviously didn’t date much in high school, because everything they seem to know about women apparently came from a Larry Flynt publication. But that joke isn’t so funny anymore, as such misogyny grows more “mainstream.”
Yeah, skip this issue for sure.
May 26th, 2007 at 7:26 am
An interesting point. It seems the artist responsible (Sana Takeda) is female.
Of course, that means the odds are against this being born from the perverseness of a guy who has never seen a Real Woman. However any editor worth the would have _still_ sent this cover back with a note saying ‘kill the tentacle porn’ as soon as he saw it.
HTG
May 26th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Ugh.
I wish I bought comics just so I could not buy this one.
May 26th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Hear, hear. I have zero interest in manga because of how much of it seems to dwell on humiliation and rape, and I am appalled and repelled by this cover. Just puerile garbage.
The MJ statue was mildly amusing/offensive at the same time, and I was willing to grant the defense I read of it here and there that the “tee hee! I’m a babe doing laundry for my husband!” could be an in-character playful pose. Silly and objectifying, maybe, but harmless enough.
But this cover… it’s just the cover to a cheap rape fantasy. I can’t believe it got through the editing and publishing process.
May 26th, 2007 at 11:53 am
When I was younger, I resented that some critics dished comics which were rather good as childish, because they didn’t have any porn or violence in them. Actually, I found many of these comics well-drawn and well-plotted, and some of them stand fairly the test of time. Some of the comics these critics praised as adults had, in contrast, weak stories, but, oh… they were riddled with scantily-dressed babes and shooting guns, so they were ADULT.
My idea of comics for adults is that comics should give sound bona-fide entertainment and food for thought (served with good art and a good story) whether they have sex and/or violence or not. The cover you have linked doesn’t suggest good comics to me, rather a lame masturbatory device… I’d say that the story must be quite irrelevant: the real objective is to have an immature male reader head to the bathroom in haste.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Yikes, that is really bad, and no, I can’t think of any other cover that liberally displayed tentacle porn like that.
I’m getting the urge to redraw this cover in two different ways…one with the three women acting as male heroes would have acted…”ready to escape any second”. The second cover would have three male heroes from the series in the exact same frightened poses. Then we can watch the fanboys howl about their favorite hero(es) subjected in that way. I’m not a fast drawer, so is anyone else up for the job? I saw that someone redid the Mary Jane statue with Spidey in her place, wearing a thong…
The sad thing is, the artist is pretty good. If she had gotten rid of the tentacles, made the women stand up defiantly, and zipped up their suits, then this would be a cover worth looking at.
The cover artist is a woman, right? I wonder what was going through her head when she drew that. Did she have to do it? Or was she trying to do what sells, regardless of her gender?
BTW, being a “feminized male” shouldn’t be an insult. Be proud that you aren’t subconsciously rejecting half the human race.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Oh, and get rid of the giant boobs. It’s NOT pleasant to have giant breasts attached your chest and getting in your way. You can’t lie down on your stomach, you can’t run, and it throws your spine out of whack.
I think all men should put on a pair of 4 pound breasts for 24 hours and see how they like it. Something like the sympathy pregnancy bellies.
May 26th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I’d really, really like to think that there’s an innocent reason for the cover and this’ll be proven by cover text missing in the original, like so: http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb162/charlesrb/HFH13.jpg
But it won’t be. (Especially as it’s the goddamn Brood, who _actually do_ forcibly impregnate people via their tentacles IIRC)
The artist is presumably doing it for the money and thought it’d be bought (and she was right), so I’ll blame the editor for not saying “er, no”.
May 26th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
I’m having trouble imagining what was going through the mind of whoever thought this up. “Let’s make it look exactly like a cover to a hentai book!”? I mean, really, there’s no mistaking it. I cannot believe the resemblance is coincidental. The drawing style helps, but even without that…
May 26th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Good call on this one. In this case, we can ask “what were they thinking?” or it might be “were they thinking at all?”
May 27th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Hear, hear. The MJ statuette is silly and offensive (and amusing in a sad kind of way), but I can buy the defense that it’s an ironic pose by a sexy wife to a strong, supportive husband. Whatever.
The Heroes for Hire cover, though, is pathetic. It’s horribly degrading and objectifying. Wolverine can’t smoke a cigar, but three heroes can be threatened with tentacle rape? Skewed priorities at marvel…
May 28th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Courtesy Newsarama (by way of Comics Should Be Good), Joe Quesada offers the following rebuttal:
“”JQ: This one I can answer to. First, I think people are reading way too much into that cover than was ever intended. I heard terms such as “tentacle rape†being thrown around when that in no way is what’s happening, nor does it happen in the book. Those tentacles are the arms of the Brood who appears in the issue and is a major story point, the Brood have tentacles, sorry about that.”"
–Ah…yeah. I don’t care how much of a clueless male you are or pretend to be, there is absolutely no frelling way you can look at that cover and imagine people *not* reading that much into it. Especially female people. This may be the most insulting statement by a major publishing media figure I’ve ever read, on a couple levels.
“”Secondly, the concept for that cover, soup to nuts came from a female artist. Thirdly, not being a deep follower of manga, I have no idea what recurring theme people are referring to or concerned with. While I appreciate the sentiment and the feelings that some may have about this, I honestly feel that there is way too much being read into this cover.”"
–’No idea’?! Uh, Joe…you’re the head of one of the two biggest comics companies on the planet. As such, you probably at the very least have access to some reference material you could flip through before wandering on the record as a total moron.
As for the sex of the artist…well, if it is a woman, that’s actually really sad and icky. I’m not suggesting *everything* in life refer back to gender politics…but it’d be nice to imagine a female comics illustrator, at least, being more aware than this.
“”Also, HFH is a book that features two strong, lead female protagonist who kick major ass; somehow folks have forgotten to focus on that.”"
–Well, damn, yeah, how could I have failed to notice that? Seeing as how you-all have such respect for them. I mean, after all, the inside of the book is what’s going to be prominently displayed on public news-stands across the country, right?…Oops.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Oh, and Typo?
“”BTW, being a “feminized male†shouldn’t be an insult. Be proud that you aren’t subconsciously rejecting half the human race.”"
What she said.
May 28th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Even without the tentacle rape thing (which, Mr. Quesada, is pretty clear), this is just a horrible cover. As others have said, 1) you can’t give the black chick relaxed hair and an afro, and 2) if you’re going to show big boobs but not nipples, at least arrange the fabric to cover where the nipples would be.
Finally, yeah, if Mr. Quesada wants people to remember that the book “features two strong, lead female protagonist who kick major ass”, he should refrain from publishing covers that show them as non-strong female protagonists who kick major ass.
Duh.
May 28th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. Most comics are not for kids. I don’t care what they say. Comics are not for kids. With the exception perhaps of Archie comics (which sometimes gets a little out there as well, especially with this new storyline in Betty and Veronica going on right now) and Disney comics most if not all DC, Marvel, and whatever comics are not appropriate for anybody under the age of 16. With covers like that they’re bound to get the parental groups riled up.
May 28th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Dierna,
Forget kids. I, as an adult, find that to be too much. Kids don’t enter my train of thought on this one.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
[...] Hire #13 cover. (Some of those links possibly NSFW.) Something stuck in my mind, though. Typolad suggested that “you would never, ever see Marvel or DC make a cover like this with a male protagonist. Yes, [...]
May 29th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Impeding rape?
I think this whole issue is a bit overblown (or maybe that is because I’m not from the US, but from Europe – Germany, where sex isn’t that much of a deal… violence rather is the bane here). The cover displays a group of caught females – seeing as to how great the percentage of male readers in comics is, I can quite understand why this happens.
Yes, they have been caught, yes they are displayed in a way that emphasizes their sexyness. But impeding rape? Because a few slimy tentacles are shown?
But oh, well, many come to that conclusion it seems… I wonder though who is to blame there. Solely the artist of this cover? Or maybe the readers and their experiences with media….
May 29th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Aya,
Some of the reaction is certainly cultural, yes.
I don’t know if I’d call this cover “displaying their sexyness”. Simpering, cut up women isn’t what most consider sexy.
As for “impending rape”, well, aside from the fact that tenticle rape is almost a subgenre of hentai, the big bad those tenticles belong to is a Brood. The Brood use their tenticles to impregnate other creatures. So yeah, this cover is very much about impending rape.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
There’s a meme going round the nets where male and female superheroes are drawn with the genders swapped, but the poses kept. Interesting results:
http://vito-excalibur.livejournal.com/114588.html#cutid1
May 29th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Again, I find people’s reaction to be way overblown. There is this implication in all of your language that this somehow violates a universal law of decency.
To me, you all just sound prudish. Which is fine, I don’t judge that… prudishness is cool… feel free… but the self-righteousness that’s dripping off all these posts is way more offensive than the tentacle slime in the picture.
And even if it *IS* impending rape. So what? So the story is about impending rape. That’s freakin’ scary. Those are some stakes. To me, that’s good storytelling. It’s a mature theme. But I’m a mature guy. Mature themes don’t scare me.
I mean if you really go back and read how ridiculous these posts sound… one person declares “the story *must* be irrelevant”… uh, okay, how did you decide that exactly? one person declares the fact that sana is female as “sick and icky”… one person declares that “most people do not find these women sexy”… uh, i guess they took a poll or something…
Stop and check yourself for a second, people. At the very least try and think about what you are saying. I understand you are offended… and that makes you emotional… but take a second and ask yourself if what you are writing can be defended… makes any kind of logical sense… isn’t just liberal self-righteous tripe before you start declaring moral authority.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Actually, “liberal” trpe would be that this is artistic self-expression and should be defended.
Which I actually agree with.
I don’t like it. Not saying it should be banned, just saying I find rape as a plot point in a book aimed at pre-teens and up to be… tacky. I also find it hypocritical that they’d never tell the same story with male characters.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Tacky? I am with you. I like that kind of language because it has a connotation of subjectivity.
And it’s a fair point that male rape as a storyline is going to be much more rare than female rape… but of course, it’s also a fair point that male rape in real-life is much more rare than female rape… on the order of 91% of victims are female with 99% of the offenders being male.
There is a sense that if you are in the world of “rape” you are already in a gender-biased universe where the victim is likely to be female and the assaulter male… certainly from a statistical perspective and, I would claim, also from a cultural perspective.
So assuming rape is a legitimate storyline for a book then I am not sure it’s fair to take an author to task for having the rape victim be female.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
robotdog, with due respect, you’ve completely missed the point here. We already know the storyline *isn’t about rape* – Joe Quesada himself makes that exact point above.
Essentially, that cover has no relevance whatsoever to anything except an enticement to buy the book. So…we’ve reduced your ‘mature theme’ to cheap, tacky exploitation, right there. Then you throw in the evident contempt-bordering-on-misogyny for the female audience, plus a nice heaping helping of indifference to the kids this book is rated OK for…
*That*’s what people are upset about. Maturity does not excuse you from morality; in fact it adds to your responsibilities. Playing the ‘self-righteousness’ card only works when you’ve got something sincere – not necessarily right or wrong, but meaningful – to defend. This cover fails on all those counts.
Especially, yes, because the artist is female. I will reiterate as many times as you like, that’s a sad, sad state of affairs.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Hmmm. Okay, km. Some fair points.
But quite a few people make the point that despite what Quesada says the story *is* about implied rape. If the brood use tentacles to impregnate other creatures then despite the official Marvel statement the cover is a fair representation of what might happen to these women.
You can’t have it both ways. If the brood is clearly a metaphor for rape and the brood is an element of this story, then the story is about rape.
So I will bring back my maturity and mature-themes argument. It’s scary and the cover sells that scariness.
Content-bordering-on-misogyny? All I can tell you is that like so many questions of obscenity/offensiveness this is so inherently subjective that I rankle at people acting like this is a fact. I do not see any contempt-bordering-on-misogyny here. And just because you do doesn’t make it so. That is my point.
The question of offensiveness is an inherently subjective one. Something can only be offensive relative to a viewer. I just want people to remember that… you can be offended all you want… but once you let it spill over into prescriptions about what is right and wrong you have crossed over into self-righteousness.
Maturity might not excuse you from morality. But it should bring you an understanding that morality is personal.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
“”If the brood use tentacles to impregnate other creatures then despite the official Marvel statement the cover is a fair representation of what might happen to these women.”"
Yeah…using that logic, a lot of things might happen to these women. For instance, they might turn around and actually behave like the kick-ass heroines they apparently are.
But on the cover – again, as the specific selling point – they’re bound, violated and mewling in terror. Still not buying the ‘handling a mature theme maturely’ argument here, sorry.
“”Content-bordering-on-misogyny? All I can tell you is that like so many questions of obscenity/offensiveness this is so inherently subjective that I rankle at people acting like this is a fact. I do not see any contempt-bordering-on-misogyny here. And just because you do doesn’t make it so. That is my point.”"
OK, kiddo, have it your way. Frankly at this point I’m just grateful I’m not a female in your immediate orbit, because you’re already creeping me out big-time.
“”Maturity might not excuse you from morality. But it should bring you an understanding that morality is personal.”"
Nope. Try using that one on the judge at your murder trial, and see how far you get.
Morality is *consensual*;, it’s about the way we interact with our social environment. That’s why, fun little self-justification parties aside, it’s not something you can avoid for long.
You’ve provided a splendid example of that yourself. Why is rape a ‘mature’, or ‘scary’ subject, if it’s not, well, wrong in some way? If there aren’t moral issues raised by the concept of someone deciding that they’re personally OK with beating, terrorizing and violating someone else?
The scale is smaller, but the point is the same: This cover violates acceptable social boundaries. It has the potential to cause harm, and it has no excuse to offer. Therefore condemnation is an acceptable, even essential, response.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Yes, I agree that morality is consensual. That is why murder and rape is illegal. Because we all agree that they are wrong. But I do not agree that discussing rape or murder… or having stories that use these as an element is wrong.
And clearly I am not the only person who disagrees with you which is why covers like this aren’t illegal. There is no consensus… which makes me wonder why you seem to think there is… ?
Re: the comment about being in my orbit. Uh, okay. Mean. I’m not sure when/why this is personal. All I can say is that all of the many great people (male and female) in my life enjoy engaging in interesting dialogue about complicated issues… and remain respectful even when we don’t agree with the other person’s point.
Anyway, I think the discussion is getting too complicated… and pushing the limits of this kind of forum, so I will just say…
I think you do make some good and fair points. My claim is basically this…
There are things that are nearly universally considered “wrong.” Murder and rape, for example. There are things nearly universally considered “right.” Generosity. Love. And there are things in the middle.
The things in the middle offend the sensibilities of different people to different degrees. I think we all have the right to our sensibilities. And I don’t think anyone should be discouraged from voicing their opinion. But I do think that they should be discouraged from assuming that their own view of right and wrong should be the de facto view of right and wrong for everyone.
Sorry if that creeps you out.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:53 am
Hehe… Well said.
We all have our opinions. I realize now, that some assumptions I made about the cover are wrong – but even so I don’t really find it offensive.
Honestly, I’ve read some of the stories with the brood, and never was aware they used their tentacles to impregnate someone, but even if, I’d never have though of this as rape. Probably because I can’t make the connection from Marvel to certain Hentai movies.
But also, the last brood stories I read are from the 80s. That’s quite some time ago.
However describing the caught heroines as “cut up” is still a bit over the top for me. They don’t really seem THAT injured to me, that I’d say “Oh, this looks bad”. In fact the most terrifying aspect is, that they are bound. Superheroines in peril. Oh.
And all who know the genre know what happens next…
(and for those that don’t get the point: Usually there’s nothing to fear there)
May 30th, 2007 at 5:03 am
Robot,
I don’t see any calls for censorship in what I wrote or anyone commenting here. Personal disgust/dislike is not the same as advocating something be censored. Marvel is welcome to sell this. They have every right. I have every right to be squicked out.
Aya, I never even thought of the Brood as a rape metaphor before this, but it does work out. Odd.
I think if it weren’t for the psuedo-sploog, I would give this cover a pass. I really, really find that over the top.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:20 am
I apologise to both you and Typo for the ‘creeped out’ comment; that was out of line.
However…
“”And clearly I am not the only person who disagrees with you which is why covers like this aren’t illegal. There is no consensus… which makes me wonder why you seem to think there is… ?”"
The law doesn’t define moral consensus, it only attempts to codify its outer limits. Not saying ‘thank you’ isn’t illegal, but the consensus is it’s inappropriate. Cheating on a test, likewise. Casual verbal or emotional cruelty. Adultery. Racism. Sexism/objectification of women, up to and including cheap pornography.
All of these things are morally wrong. Yes, I realise it’s possible to argue degrees – as I mentioned above – but not the basic inappropriateness, nor the potential to cause harm.
So no, given the weight of the *factual* evidence here I don’t really feel the need to show respect for the notion that this is actually a sensitive, mature depiction of a morally fraught situation. (Especially not from a male POV – sorry, but there is a difference). It’s just wrong, plain and simple.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
All good points, km. The hard part of it all is figuring out how to measure “potential to cause harm” and “inappropriateness.”
My basic philosophy when it comes to this is that the task (the task of figuring out when cheap pornography falls into the category of wrong and when it falls into “not my thing, but whatever floats your boat”) is so impossible that I retreat into a modified form of relativism.
And this is where the crux of our disagreement falls. You are comfortable with a phrase “it’s just wrong, plain and simple” on something you find offensive.
And not only do I not find this image particularly offensive… but I am uncomfortable with that phrase when it comes to something that is intrinsically as subjective and subject to viewer’s interpretation as art.
Even if I was actually offended, I would strongly resist a posture that didn’t try to take into account that not everyone might perceive it in the same way that I do…
Who was it that said “What is good? What is bad? Who can know these things?”
May 31st, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Who is the biggest comics geek: he who has so little contact with actual women that he “jerks off to comic-book heroines” (not that I see how it matters what people jerk off to) … or he who has so little contact with actual women that he is taken aback by the revelation that there ARE JUST SUCH ACTUAL WOMEN who delight in – and are turned on by – the objectification and degradation of women, in and out of comics?
May 31st, 2007 at 11:25 pm
*cheers*
The victimization is IMPORTANT
A lot of ppl just see it as “omg no nudity, I’ve seen worse than this”
But they rly haven’t. :\
The victimization IS HUGE.
Even (American) porn comics dun have victimization on their covers (to my knowledge >.>). Usually the girls are happy and smiling
Same with porn MAGAZINES.
The girls are happy and smiling.
They aren’t tied up with their clothes torn rdy to be raped
June 1st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
I’m not sure how to begin my comments. I’m dithering between “Welcome to another thrilling episode of “Not My Kink!†or “Welcome to the Jerry Falwell Memorial Page of WWTT.â€
I’m reminded of a National Lampoon fake contest, where the first prize was getting beaten up by Emma Peel. For sure, the sexual fantasy reference was a bit more subtle there than in the current object under discussion, but, far as I’m concerned, the former sexual fantasy isn’t any less “offensive†than the latter one.
Or have we forgotten that these aren’t real people, but just ink on paper?
Folks, these are fantasies. It’s not real, okay? I can’t be sure, but I’m guessing that no actual women were victimized during the creation of this bit of artwork.
Okay, so rape fantasies aren’t your cup of poison. No problemo. Not mine, either. But if you aren’t aware that rape fantasy is a very common turn-on among women, you’re naïve. Just as super-powerful ultra-feminine women beating up people seems to be a very common turn-on among present-day comic book fans. Or for that matter, super-powerful ultra-masculine men beating up people is a turn-on for some folk.
Please note, I said “fantasy.†I’m guessing that the vast majority of guys who fantasize about Emma Peel (or Supergirl or Wonder Woman) beating people up wouldn’t ever want to see that fantasy acted out in the real world–and if it ever was, it would most likely not look anything like how it’s portrayed in fiction. Given that there isn’t endless promiscuous sexual activity going on out on the streets every second of the day and night, I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of human beings can engage in sexual fantasies without actually acting upon them.
Typo, I’m not ashamed to have come across the term “tentacle rape,†any more than I’m ashamed to know what “rimshot†and “golden shower†mean. And I know what “adultery,†means, too. I’m a very happily married, AARP card-carrying man. Both my wife’s and my libidos need all the help they can get. And no one my age would be a bit surprised about the fantasies we engage in to keep ourselves happy and healthy. But neither of us would ever act on such fantasies outside of our own home–we know the difference between fantasy and reality, y’see.
When we seek out fantasy material, some things turn us on, some things turn us off (and some things turn me on and her off and vice-versa). I’m not, however, going to announce, especially in a public blog, that because something is Not My Kink, “there is simply no way that [it’s] not offensive. None.â€
Actually, with all due respect, I find your position much more offensive than the object under consideration. Your mileage, of course, has every right to vary.
But I am reminded of student actor Jedediah Schultz’s comment in The Laramie Project when he questions the hypocrisy of his parents who allow him to play a murderer on stage, but not a homosexual.
No, I can’t say I’ve recently seen a “mainstream†cover present this particular sex fantasy quite this blatantly, tho I’ve certainly seen sexual fantasies portrayed pretty blatantly, especially on pulp magazines and paperbacks. Would you consider the thirties pulps Spicy Detective Stories and Weird Tales, or sixties-era barbarian or spy novel paperbacks to be “mainstream?â€
Don’t get me wrong: When you point out the blatant misogyny in comics, I’m with you all the way (in a giggly-smug “oh we’re so much more enlightened, we are” kind of way), but most of the time the misogyny is of a “Freudian slip†nature, as it were, a supposed “side effect†(though we know better, don’t we?) of the fantasy. In this case, though, the subservient bondage motif is the fantasy.
Couldn’t be more clear. Or more honest.
So that’s Not Your Kink. Leather bondage beefcake ain’t mine, but I don’t publicly demand that people boycott Robert Mapplethorpe exhibits.
To the “we need to protect the Tiny Tots†argument (cf, Stan Freberg, “Elderly Man Riverâ€): I’ve absolutely no doubt that Dr. Wertham was sincere in his crusade, too, but my study of psychology tells me that forcing adolescents to hide fantasy materials “under the bed†(rather than letting them choose to do so or not—-embarrassment over one’s budding sexuality is par) causes more harm than good. Personally, I’d prefer adolescents have access to sexual fantasy material for two reasons: first, they’re gonna get they’re hands on it anyway, and more importantly, I think there’d be a lot less teenage suicides and promiscuous sex if kids were allowed to know that their fantasies are normal and can offer release but we simply don’t act them out in the real world.
Because fantasy is fantasy, reality is reality, the former ain’t the latter and kids need to be taught which fantasies society will allow them to act out on and which ones they can’t. All adolescents go through a period of sexual discovery and experimentation, and I personally think it’d be better for them to initially run some “mind experiments†rather than jumping into the real thing. You may find it hard to believe, but self-experimentation really doesn’t make hair grow on the palms of either gender. And, no, folks, being exposed to a Kink won’t make you more inclined to engage in it any more than being exposed to homosexuality will turn you into one, okay?
To sum up: In my way of thinking, the only people “offended†by things that are “Not My Kink†are those that were never taught this, to me, simple idea:
Fantasy is not reality!
Oh, and BTW, I didn’t get to mention my amusement over your expressing disgust over objectification while simultaneously expressing disgust that it wasn’t portrayed realistically enough.
(Note: No Davies brothers were harmed during the creation of this comment.)
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:09 am
Faboofour-
Your comment was snatched by my spam filter. I’ve rescued it.
Congrats. I haven’t seen anyone miss the point to such a large degree in a very, very long time.
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 am
JV – I fail to see were that has any bearing on this topic.
I’m not saying NO ONE ANYWHERE IS INTERESTED IN THIS! Nor am i saying THIS SHOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED! STORM THE CASTLE! I am saying “Damn. That’s pretty icky. I’m not buying it. here’s why it offends me. If you agree, don’t buy it also.”
Nowhere am I calling for censorship or denying there ARE people who like this stuff. Their choice. i have the right not to though as well.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Hmm, that might qualify me as a perv, but what the heck i guess I am one. I actually like the cover, well drawn and expressive. For me I believe they targeted the right audience which is mostly sex craved teenager boys. This sells, like it or not. Turn off for female, but boys will go for that. Beside, if you undergo deep analysis of society deep psychological analysis, and societal role of both gender. You can understand why this appeal the male public. But i wont go into it. Just know that, most men like female who shows vulnerability even if they are strong in nature…err
June 5th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Miss the point? Let’s see:
“That’s what annoys me. The fact that you would never, ever see Marvel or DC make a cover like this with a male protagonist. Yes, a male hero may be shown in peril, but his face will be defiant. He won’t be shown as submissive. He won’t be shown as a victim. He’ll be shown as a Tough Guy who will Escape Any Minute.”
Oh, I get it: you want Marvel to publish MALE rape fantasies, too. Hey, no problem! Hey, Marvel: Typolad wants MALE RAPE FANTASIES AND HE WANTS IT NOW!!
But, y’know, just ’cause Marvel ain’t publishing Your Kink doesn’t mean you have to go all Wertham on what they are publishing, do you?
June 5th, 2007 at 5:05 am
Well, this is a sad example of a witch hunt and a witch. Ive been a fan of comics and indeed the brood characters for quite some time. I agree, the lines between maintream and ‘older’ comics are bluring somewhat these days.
But i ask you, is it not more of an issue with todays culture? Here we are shouting at marvel when this and many comics like it (wonder woman, darkness, witchblade etc) make it into the hands of children ever since the word get go! Sexy women on comics, well hell its fantasy right and after a millenia of supresion to the female gender thse types of values are sadly in the hearts and minds of most and i say most women.
Bet youre wondering who im trying to shift the blame on eh? I’ll leave you guessing…
And shame on those of you who laid into a man’s grammar. I mean jesus on a stick (oh dear is that gonna start another thread?) it must be said that insulting such a thing is the sign of a bad argument!
Calm down!
This tentecle rape term has appeared from the start and quite frankly i would hope that these 9 year olds whould NOT have the same fefernce to it. We adults (tainted to a life of maturity) would think this but kids? I bloody hope not. You cant have it all your own way. Either these kids know what those tentecles are gonna do or not and theyve already been ‘tainted’ with vile porn and its kinda pointless. Infact hell, if kids could look at this and think anything to do with porn let alone an offshoot, then i think boycotting a comic is waaaaay too late to save our youth!
It all comes down to consumerism. These comics sell to the majority. This is because the majority shamelessly buy them. We few offended can do nothing in the face of it because we live in a democracy. Ie the majority say what is what. NB in Britain its more like a 1984 setting already!
To surmize:
The cover contains peril, a reason to read (what happens here then?). If you are 9yrs old you see this and only this. If you are an adult it gets a little deeper and complex. Lets not ruin everything buy making a big deal else the next gen will end up knowing what we know.
Thank you for reading.
June 6th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Oblivious – hey, feel free to like it. For me, the turn off isn’t that it’s women in a vulnerable situation as much the graphicness of said image. There are thousands of comic covers of men and women in danger. This one, just in my opinion, crosses a line.
faboofour – I have no interest in male rape fantasies either. if that’s what you got out of my writing, well, you’re a fascinating person.
My point was that it is a double standard. This is something that is “okay” to do to female characters and not to male. Men are Tough, Women are Weak. Example – there was a Wolverine cover with him being attacked by tentacles. He’s shown as defiant and raging instead of submissive and cringing. Before you say a lot of it is character, that’s the in-character response for Misty Knight as well.
Sadly, ven when a woman is the protagonist, covers tend to be cheesecake (She Hulk, Ms. Marvel, anything Greg Horn’s worked on, actually). Cheesecake’s one thing (I love Frank Cho), but to me, there’s a step too far. You’re welcome to enjoy it, mind you. Just noting that I don’t intend to buy it and that I think those who are offended, like me, should do the same.
Saintgeorge – I guess what I’m saying is there’s a fine line between sexism and sexy. I personally feel this cover crosses the line. It’s absolutely an issue with modern culture, and that’s a good point. It’s also bordering on defining deviancy down, but let’s not go there.
I just re-read all the comments and do not see anyone letting into anyone else’s grammar. I think the discussion here has been very civilized and interesting.
Also, no-one here is “shouting at Marvel”. We’re just not buying this comic.
This is now the most-commented on entry here. Where are you guys all coming from?
June 7th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Mainstream magazines with covers showing an impending rape, or a woman being victimized? Heavy Metal, Fangoria, and the women’s true confession types.
Tentacle rape? The brood typically stick their tentacles into their victim’s chest. Last time I checked, the vagina is not in a woman’s chest.
Is the cover suggestive? Certainly. Does it use sexual imagery to sell copies? Definitely. Will it cause the collapse of western civilization? Rather unlikely.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
“My point was that it is a double standard. This is something that is “okay†to do to female characters and not to male. Men are Tough, Women are Weak.”
“Cheesecake’s one thing (I love Frank Cho), but to me, there’s a step too far.”
Gosh, Typo, you’re a confusing person.
If you’re offended by rape fantasies as being “a step too far,” then I assume you’d be offended regardless whether the “victim” were male or female.
If, on the other hand, you’re complaining about a “double standard” you’re perceiving, then I’d assume you _wouldn’t_ be offended by rape fantasies, regardless of whether you do or don’t find them a turn-on, and would therefore welcome them as simply another form of fictive expression.
If your point is the latter, then I agree with your self-righteous indignation: equal fantasy for everyone, I say–Mw, Wm, Mm, Ww, and the whole shooting match, tentacles and all, knowhatimean?
But if it’s the former (and your oft-asserted opinion that the object in question is “offensive” leads me to think that it is the former), then I’m afraid I really don’t see where my initial impression was off-base that you’re going off all Wertham on us.
That’s okay, mind you. Just let’s call that shovel what it am, ‘kay?
Regardless, tho, my guess is that the chief reason that you don’t see so much male rape fantasy on the covers of magazines is that they simply don’t sell as well as showing female rape fantasy. Kinda like why they published the more gruesome horror comics in the fifties: they sold better, y’know?
If you want mild fantasy, go for it. Dell made a fortune with it.
Me, I prefer EC.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
“Going wertham”? I am most assuredly not going “Wertham”. I’m not calling for a ban. I’m just saying this offends me.
The reason you’re having trouble understanding me is that you seem to think it’s either/or. Either I’m offended by rapoe fantasies or I’m offended by female rape fantasies. Can’t be both. Guess what? I find rape as a selling point for a story to be offensive and
Again, not calling for a ban on anything. Just saying I don’t intend to buy this.
Additionally, there’s a huge range in between “rape fantasy” and “mild fantasy”. Comics can have violence without glorifying it.
Also, please stop using a hotmail acct when you comment. It’s picking you up as spam and I have to go in and hand-post it. Thanks.
June 13th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
faboofour, you’re being deliberately obtuse. Your “Not My Kink” argument is kind of out of place. Instead of hitting it point by point, let me just say this: If not wanting Hentai rape fantasies on the cover of books being marketed to nine-year-olds is wrong, I’m not interested in being right. The fact that you and your wife get off on power fantasies, S&M, B&D, or whatever else is entirely beside the point. Those are fine things to fantasize about, but none of them belong on the cover of children’s books.
Secondly, this idea that Typolad can’t have a problem with rape fantasies on the cover of children’s books and simultaneously notice a gender bias is intentionally stupid. C’mon. Seriously.
Finally, you disagree with Typolad pretty abusively, your comments keep getting stuck in the spam filter (people actually still use Hotmail?), and yet they still show up after Typo’s seen the content.
If he’s “going Wertham” on us, how do you account for your arguments showing up at all?
June 15th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Thanks, Typo and Matt, for FINALLY being honest about your complaint. You got a problem with sex and violence in your kiddy books.
You do realize that this was exactly Wertham’s complaint, don’t you?
Again: I got no prob with that. I just didn’t buy the “double standard” bull.
My sincere apologies if I came off as “abusive.” I’m just looking out for honesty.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Oh, and btw, Wertham never advocated censorship, either. In fact he’s on record as being adamantly opposed to it.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
I’ll say it once more, with feeling.
One can have more than one concern about an issue. Take this cover, for example. The cover’s inappropriateness (because Marvel itself classifies the book as being appropriate for age 9) can exist simultaneously with another form of the cover’s inappropriateness (removing the self-classification, and we still have a cover that unnecessarily sexualizes the damsels in distress in a particularly vulgar manner), and a third form of the cover’s inappropriateness (further removing #2, and we still have a cover that presents three supposedly strong women as meek and helpless in the face of an attack in such a way as would never be considered if the three characters were men). That’s three, and I haven’t even gotten to the shittiness of the art, specifically the missing nipples and the oddly chosen impossible afro.
As for “FINALLY being honest” and your “looking out for honesty”, don’t be so quick to pat yourself on the back. Typo hasn’t changed his argument from the beginning of this. I know you can scroll up yourself (though considering that you haven’t done it before now, maybe you can’t), but I’ll toss in a quote from Typo’s first post.
And then there’s this bit from his reply #23:
June 16th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Matt, what you’re missing here is MY point that, outside of the “we must save the tiny tots from nasty ol’ sex” argument, all the other complaints are red herrings.
Typo wrote a 500 word essay, the theme of which was not “This is pretty offensive to me”, but “Offended? TELL MARVEL.” (emphasis mine). It was a overt call for a boycott of Marvel. He unambiguously writes “Speak with your wallet.” No amount of backpedaling on Typo’s part is going to change his original theme.
No intelligent person would think that this “call to arms” was to boycott just this particular issue: if you were offended by the cover, you sinply wouldn’t purchase it, or if you had a subscription, you’d cancel it. I don’t like licorice: I don’t eat it. I don’t like the artwork in a comic book, I don’t buy it. End of story.
Someone else wants to, I don’t really care. Some people prefer Curt Swan to Chris Ware, not an issue to me. And I’m certainly not so incredibly vain to subject them to a 500 word essay on my opinion on art (unless I was specifically asked to respond, as the “comments” section here implies).
It would be an insult to Typo’s readers’ intelligence to expect them to believe that Typo was simply expressing his dislike of something and nothing more. Say he wrote a 500 word essay expressing his disgust with asparagus and ended it by saying “It’s time to say ‘enough’” by demanding that people who buy asparagus stop buying it.
At the very least, you’d write the guy off as a nutter, wouldn’t you?
To me, this blog entry reads like a 500 word mini-version of Seduction Of The Innocent. Nothing more, nothing less.
And, c’mon, no intelligent person wouldn’t know why there’s more submissive female covers than submissive male ones: Because submissive male covers DON’T SELL to the current comic book audience! Duh! If Typo really was worried about a “double standard”, he’d have called for equality (a option I offered to him, but he rejected outright), not a boycott.
As it is, I see “double standards” being applied by Typo: “I want adult themes in comics, but just the adult themes I want to see. I don’t mind sex in comics, as long as it’s the sex I want to see. Violent themes are okay, as long as they’re themes I approve of. Otherwise it BOYCOTTIN’ TIME!”
The really sad thing, for me, is that I really enjoyed this blog, ’cause I thought Typo was having fun with his sarcastic commentaries on what’s in the old comics. Now I can never be sure if he’s really not just being self-righteous (I trait I personally find extremely offensive).
June 16th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Typolad was right. You missed the point, and I mean really missed the point.
I had a whole big response typed out, but then I realized that you clearly didn’t read the last two. So why waste my energy on a third?
Bye.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
fab,
Actually, you’re dead wrong. I was rather specifically saying DON’T BUY THIS ONE ISSUE.
Then again, of all my points you seem to have missed, that’s a minor one.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Lemme understand this: you wrote a five-hundred word essay saying “Don’t buy this one asparagus tip.” All the other asparagus tips are okay by you, then. According to you, this was a single out-of-the-ordinary anomoly? So rape fantasy is okay by you, just not this one occurance which was “a step too far”.
But, wait: you also wrote “I find rape as a selling point for a story to be offensive”.
So is it just this one attempt or ALL attempts to use rape as a selling point as a story that offends you? Is it all asparagus or just a single tip?
Y’know, Typo, other than repeatedly contradicting yourself (first you say you’re tellng people not to buy the issue, then you say you’re not calling for a ban of anything, then you reverse youself AGAIN and admit you were telling people not to buy that issue), you really haven’t clarified the alleged “points” I seem to have missed.
I read your essay as a call for a boycott of Marvel (okay, I’ll accept, against evidence to the contrary, that it was for that one asparagus tip, I mean, issue) because it was, in your belief, universally offensive (“There is simply no way that the cover is not offensive,” you wrote. “None.”). The majority of the words you wrote were in support of that theme. Frankly, I don’t really care why you found it universally offensive, any more than I care why, say, Pat Robertson or Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh finds things “universally offensive”.
Don’t even try to tell me you weren’t calling for a boycott. It was an OVERT call for a boycott. “Speak with your wallet, folks,” you wrote. “Say no to this comic.”
And don’t try to backpedal again and say that you weren’t saying “NO ONE ANYWHERE IS INTERESTED IN THIS!” The majority of your essay consisted in explaining how “[t]here is simply no way that the cover is not offensive. None.”
Again: I read your essay as a call for a boycott of Marvel because the cover was, in your belief, universally offensive.
And also again: there’s nothing wrong with that, Typo. You’re certainly allowed to believe that there is such a thing as “universal immutable morality.” I really don’t understand why you’re arguing that you didn’t say that.
I always admit when I’m wrong. That’s called honesty. Tell me where I’m wrong, please, and I’ll go away.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
There are two very similar words in English that mean very different things. To “censor” means to prevent somebody from expressing themselves in the way they choose. To “censure” means to criticize somebody for what they said and to hold them accountable for their words. The first is deadly, the second is vital.
Typo is not suggesting that Marvel be censored, but he is advocating that they be censured. Calling for a boycott is not censorship. It is censuring. It is calling on people to hold a publisher accountable for what they have already published, not preventing them from publishing in the first place. If Marvel has made the decision that this is the kind of product they want to have associated with their name, readers are well within their rights to decide to no longer buy their product, and to suggest to others to do likewise. Marvel can publish whatever they want, but refusing to buy it is not censorship.
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I never said Typo was calling for “censorship”. Someone else claimed I was by invoking Wertham, and I pointed out that Wertham never called for censorship. No, what Typo is advocating is no different than what Wertham advocated: the repression of the imagination of others based on one’s own moral grounds.
I personally find that position extremely offensive, and I’ve said so, but I wouldn’t censure Typo for either holding or expressing that position.
I’m simply asking him to call a spade a spade.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I know this is late, but Marvel pulled the image off their site.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:27 am
hi
03918bkwo090zhir
good luck