"Too Racy"? Your thoughts

[hellacre]

Do you have any links to the criticisms these two sites posted about the sexualization of Wonder Woman?

Thank you twitter you have made my job a tad easier and thank you blacksun for informing dcwomen so promptly. Makes what misslane ask for up to date because some of these commentaries are over the years.

https://twitter.com/dcwomenkicknass


Right now we have eyes bleeding about this very pic and Tomasi's upcoming shot of them in bed.



I really don't have the time to search that archive but a quick google came up with this.I am sure I missed other stuff. The reason one is aware about it because Bleeding Cool picks up on what some bloggers might grouse about so it's pretty much out there.

Here are some of what you requested with sm/ww from well the time charles soule joked with Josh Flannagan from Ifanboy on twitter and the blog decided that Soule was a horrible horrible man and the book is going to hell to some reviews of it etc and the fact that this new 52 Diana is the worse Diana ever and Diana is stealing from Lois to needing to see Steve and Diana have sex.


http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...ing-and-flying

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...rs-romance-and

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...wonder-woman-1

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...55/worstof2012

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...n-of-seduction

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...-trevor-did-it

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...ver-of-sm-ww-7


People are entitled to hating a pairing yes, but the double standards on sexism and what is acceptable sexualized images is pretty glaring to me. Like I say there have been many sexualized images of Lois and Clark and we have silence. Because end of the day...the logic here is imo that they are right while sm/ww everything is wrong. And the many knee jerk reaction posts about WW in SM/WW with without any proper follow up to them.

http://www.themarysue.com/wonder-woman-36/

Feel free to search geekmom and comic alliance via google too.

Wonder Woman showering too apparently was made a big deal from #36. Never mind Greg Rucka's run ( who gets praised to high heaven...his run was good but was not perfect because he did make the big WW boo boo in Blackest Night that had many readers go wth ) after the Superman Sacrifice fight we had a Diana in the shower scene that could be seen as gratuitous as well.

[ed2962]

As I said elsewhere, I don't think it's too racy personally. However, I doubt it has less to do with DC being afraid of Cloiser bloggers and more about the fear of framing both of their historically (to the mainstream public that doesn't read comics that is) asexual icons in even a slightly suggestive manner, especially out of wedlock. I think one thing people seem to over look with the sexy stuff with Lois and Clark , is that outside of SUPERMAN II, we never saw Lois and Superman in any suggestive way in most media until AFTER they were wed in the comics, and especially IN the comics. Even when they were engaged there was little or no implied nudity, sexual stuff outside of some dialog or a glance etc.Until the marriage, the only indication of Sex with Supes and Lois was an occasional referrence to "a rainy night in July".

Yeah, it may seem prudish in 2015, but to some, premarital sex is concidered a taboo still, especially to a character like Superman who some still seem to think is primarily a children's character. Remember the outrage from some over the cover to an issue of ACTION a few years back that had Clark innocently sharing a beer with Pa Kent? DC caved then and changed it to soder cola. So really, this is nothing more than being over protective of their icons. It's not about DC showing any sort of "preferrence".

This is what I thought of as well. Not that it's too racy, but that someone might think it's too racy for Superman.

[Agent Z]

Thank you twitter you have made my job a tad easier and thank you blacksun for informing dcwomen so promptly. Makes what misslane ask for up to date because some of these commentaries are over the years.

https://twitter.com/dcwomenkicknass


Right now we have eyes bleeding about this very pic and Tomasi's upcoming shot of them in bed.



I really don't have the time to search that archive but a quick google came up with this.I am sure I missed other stuff. The reason one is aware about it because Bleeding Cool picks up on what some bloggers might grouse about so it's pretty much out there.

Here are some of what you requested with sm/ww from well the time charles soule joked with Josh Flannagan from Ifanboy on twitter and the blog decided that Soule was a horrible horrible man and the book is going to hell to some reviews of it etc and the fact that this new 52 Diana is the worse Diana ever and Diana is stealing from Lois to needing to see Steve and Diana have sex.


http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...ing-and-flying

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...rs-romance-and

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...wonder-woman-1

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...55/worstof2012

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...n-of-seduction

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...-trevor-did-it

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...ver-of-sm-ww-7


People are entitled to hating a pairing yes, but the double standards on sexism and what is acceptable sexualized images is pretty glaring to me. Like I say there have been many sexualized images of Lois and Clark and we have silence. Because end of the day...the logic here is imo that they are right while sm/ww everything is wrong. And the many knee jerk reaction posts about WW in SM/WW with without any proper follow up to them.

http://www.themarysue.com/wonder-woman-36/

Feel free to search geekmom and comic alliance via google too.

Wonder Woman showering too apparently was made a big deal from #36. Never mind Greg Rucka's run ( who gets praised to high heaven...his run was good but was not perfect because he did make the big WW boo boo in Blackest Night that had many readers go wth ) after the Superman Sacrifice fight we had a Diana in the shower scene that could be seen as gratuitous as well.

I don't recall that shower scene but I can imagine that it got less of a reaction because Rucka's run was infinitely better written than Finch. The latter's artwork doesn't help. And while I didn't care for that BL night tie-in at least Rucka had the sense not to repeat it.

[t hedge coke]

From the links hellacre just supplied:



What the hell is up with Wonder Woman's legs?

But, they do compare it to a shirtless Superman pic they do like more, so it's not that it's sexed up or something, just that it's awkwardly out of character and there's something weird going on with her body.

[Punisher007]

"Too racy," are you kidding? NO, unless seeing Superman's chest hair is "too racy" for some (which it probably is, which is just sad). They're a couple in a committed monogamous relationship, and those frequently involve sex. There's nothing "tasteless" or "leering" about it, especially consider some of the other "sex stuff" that the Big Two have done over the years.

[Blacksun]

I don't recall that shower scene but I can imagine that it got less of a reaction because Rucka's run was infinitely better written than Finch. The latter's artwork doesn't help. And while I didn't care for that BL night tie-in at least Rucka had the sense not to repeat it.

sure, also it wasn't on his first issue of WW. Rucka gets praise because he is a good writer.

[Kuwagaton]

I think it's awkward and Superman bedding his girlfriend is on zero of the checklists I've ever made for comic fantasies.

[hellacre]

I don't recall that shower scene but I can imagine that it got less of a reaction because Rucka's run was infinitely better written than Finch. The latter's artwork doesn't help. And while I didn't care for that BL night tie-in at least Rucka had the sense not to repeat it.

Just a cropped image of it.



Compare it to this.



I'm sorry the issue is about art and sexualization. Diana in Finch's WW her hands were shown and then this and we have them attacking it. Rucka's book we have boob flash as well. Sure Rucka's writing was good but let's stick to the topic here. This is not sexualized more than Rucka. Same as SM/WW in an afterglow pic is not racier than this. This was printed after the Catwoman/Batman reaction.



This is not even the only panel actually...lots more compared to that one panel of sm/ww. Makes sm/ww seem tame by comparison. But they are naked right? And there are other ones with them naked in bed post sex or about to have sex. But those are not "sexualized" perhaps. No one writes blogs and attacks DC for them and try to create a stink. Only SM/WW get that honor.

The whole smallville comic series was unabashedly allowed to show clark and lois who are living together ( not married) to be shown as intimate and that's fine by me. They are a committed couple. I have no problems with any comic providing its readership with two people in love being intimate. But if a comic that is aimed at me, I wonder at the people who don't buy it or support it attacking it.

So just goes back to Superman Editorial being selective and why, one can only wonder.

AT least seems they have approved Tomasi's image of Clark and Diana post convergence that is making dcwomen's eyes bleed. I am sure Tomasi and DC will get badgered for it.

[hellacre]

sure, also it wasn't on his first issue of WW. Rucka gets praise because he is a good writer.

Writing is not what this topic is about. As made clear by the OP. It being not his first issue is kinda irrelevant as well.

[hellacre]

From the links hellacre just supplied:



What the hell is up with Wonder Woman's legs?

But, they do compare it to a shirtless Superman pic they do like more, so it's not that it's sexed up or something, just that it's awkwardly out of character and there's something weird going on with her body.

So basically they can like what they like which is fine but note the stealing the imagery from Lois and the fact that sexualized image is good in their eyes when both images have a sexual element to it. If anything Supes is in the cheesecake position in March's for a change. This grousing about Diana stealing from lois been around CBR by some posters for a while now so that is nothing new.

[t hedge coke]

So basically they can like what they like which is fine but note the stealing the imagery from Lois and the fact that sexualized image is good in their eyes when both images have a sexual element to it. If anything Supes is in the cheesecake position in March's for a change. This grousing about Diana stealing from lois been around CBR by some posters for a while now so that is nothing new.

That link didn't have anything to do with it being Wonder Woman and not Lois. And it wasn't a complain against sexuality. It's a criticism of that stupid face on Diana and her weird legs.

[misslane]

Just a cropped image of it.



Compare it to this.

Let's look at the Finch shower scene:



The Rucka shower scene, despite the fact that it exposes Diana more, is actually less problematic. Because the Finch art does not feature Diana's face and chooses instead to focus on individual body parts, the result is a more objectified image. Rucka's image is of a naked woman, but there isn't anything overtly sexual about it.

But if a comic that is aimed at me, I wonder at the people who don't buy it or support it attacking it.

Why do you continue to suggest that the racy SM/WW imagery was pulled as a direct result of unsubstantiated claims that other shippers made a fuss about it? According to Daniel, the image was deemed too racy, and that's all we know. It's far more likely the real issue is about portraying Diana as overtly sexual.

So just goes back to Superman Editorial being selective and why, one can only wonder.

My guess is it's sexism that is rooted in Madonna/Whore issues. I doubt it's because a few fans on social media complained.

AT least seems they have approved Tomasi's image of Clark and Diana post convergence that is making dcwomen's eyes bleed. I am sure Tomasi and DC will get badgered for it.

Please try to consider context when you make claims like the one above. DCWomen was clearly referring to the \S/ t-shirt as the source of her eyes bleeding not the sexual nature of the scene.

[hellacre]

Let's look at the Finch shower scene:



The Rucka shower scene, despite the fact that it exposes Diana more, is actually less problematic. Because the Finch art does not feature Diana's face and chooses instead to focus on individual body parts, the result is a more objectified image. Rucka's image is of a naked woman, but there isn't anything overtly sexual about it.



Why do you continue to suggest that the racy SM/WW imagery was pulled as a direct result of unsubstantiated claims that other shippers made a fuss about it? According to Daniel, the image was deemed too racy, and that's all we know. It's far more likely the real issue is about portraying Diana as overtly sexual.



My guess is it's sexism that is rooted in Madonna/Whore issues. I doubt it's because a few fans on social media complained.



Please try to consider context when you make claims like the one above. DCWomen was clearly referring to the \S/ t-shirt as the source of her eyes bleeding not the sexual nature of the scene.

Sorry there is nothing less problematic in Diana's Rucka shower scene. There is however a clear double standard in the reaction. And we are speculating why DC would be wanting to perpetuate the madonna/whore idea which was brought up earlier between myself and dispenseroftruth. And we mostly agree here it is a foolish decision and there is nothing racy about this...HERE but other reactions elsewhere...well...apparently blasphemy and misogyny.

Oh I think I know where this blog is coming from based on its post over the last 3 years. The current reactions and the tweeting to peter tomasi and dan didio...say it all. She has made it very clear about how she feels about sm/ww and her obvious bias for her preference of Lois and Clark which she has many times said before...I do not fault her for having a preference...it's her blog and her fave pairing but I wonder at her for wearing rose tinted glasses when it suits her on issues of sexism. Because there seems a lack of consistency in what is sexualized and what isn't. There is the , once it's my pairing it's okay though. We can pull up many of sexualized clois images which you as a big clois fan have access to and you know if these folks used their own gauge then some of those would be picked apart as well. So yeah double standards.

[LastActionHero]

I don't think it's racy. The comic is for 'Teen+', and the demographic is pretty mature to handle this kind of content.

[misslane]

Thank you twitter you have made my job a tad easier and thank you blacksun for informing dcwomen so promptly. Makes what misslane ask for up to date because some of these commentaries are over the years.

https://twitter.com/dcwomenkicknass


Right now we have eyes bleeding about this very pic and Tomasi's upcoming shot of them in bed.

What DCWKA just said is about Diana wearing Superman's emblem specifically and not that she and Superman had sex or look sexy. Her commentary has nothing to do with the sexual or racy nature of the scene at all.

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...ing-and-flying

This was about the seeming emphasis on sex over other matters, since fans and Soule seemed to focus more so on that aspect of the relationship and book than others initially. It wasn't, however, about the existence of sexually suggestive scenes altogether.

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...rs-romance-and

This was about romance in the vein of Twilight as what could attract female readers. The complaint is therefore about assuming that all female readers are interested in is romance, specifically Twilight style romance, and not about sex existing in the book in general. DCWKA's main point was stated as, "The problem is when the equation for female readers = romance. And further, when romance = Twilight. Twilight is a well loved series by many women. But it is also problematic for others. It should not be used as a touch point."

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...wonder-woman-1

The only relevant bit is this:

In a way I feel sorry for the creators. Batman, of course, kicked off the new 52 with a bang, literally, by having sex with Catwoman on a rooftop. So while you can talk up Superman and Wonder with talk of “adventures” and “heroics” that’s not the reason they are together in this book now. After 50 years of being pals those reading this book are expecting the book to end up where Batman began. Essentially Soule is charged with writing, for the very short term I’m sure, the comic equivalent of foreplay.

It isn't at all suggesting that it would be a problem to include a sexy scene in the book. Rather, it is critiquing the idea of the focus of the book being sex and that being the reason readers want to read the book. She's more or less just following up on the publicity leading up to the book, in which the creators and fans seemed keen to promote that aspect of the book and relationship, by saying that those reading the first issue for those reasons may have been disappointed not to get that as soon as Batman/Catwoman did.

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...55/worstof2012

None of the commentary in this post addresses sex other than using DC's own PR terms like "Sexy Sidekick" in a title. I suppose one could reason that DC and its creators, like Daniel and Soule, made the mistake in the announcement and promotion of the relationship (and its book) of highlighting the sex appeal of it. Had they not done so, perhaps they wouldn't have second guessed the scene as confirming people's fears. In other words, the problem isn't with the scene in general, but the timing of it.

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...n-of-seduction

The criticism in this post is about the execution of the idea of a pre or post-coital scene and not the idea itself.

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...-trevor-did-it

DCWKA's issue in this post is not at all about Diana and Clark having sex or Diana being shown having sex. Her concern is actually the opposite. To her, it is concerning that historically Diana's sexuality hasn't been treated the same way as men and other female characters. DCWKA is actually for Diana having her sexuality explored on panel. Her complaint is therefore that it's unfortunate Diana's possible first sexual experience with Steve Trevor was never written about or shown, despite Soule saying it happened on Twitter. It is odd to her that that first, important moment in her character development would be ignored, especially since it might make any subsequent decisions regarding sexual encounters shown on panel problematic either because it would confirm that Diana's only allowed to be sexy with Superman (not with other women and not with mortals) or, if her sex life with Superman isn't shown, continuing the trend of disrespecting Diana's sexuality by ignoring or downplaying it.

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...ver-of-sm-ww-7

This post has literally nothing to do with sex. It's complaining about Wonder Woman being drawn more bloodied in a final version of a cover, which is a problem because it suggests there was a concerted effort to make sure she looked more vulnerable. It's all about how art relates to her powers and strength and not about sex at all.

http://www.themarysue.com/wonder-woman-36/

This article is not about showing Wonder Woman in any sort of coital situation. It's about objectifying her in a shower scene for the male gaze. It's about whether the particular story told in this issue required such a scene and for it to be executed in the particular style that it was executed in. None of it suggests that, if the context was solid and the art tasteful, a scene with Diana post-coital with Clark would be worthy of criticism.