"Too Racy"? Your thoughts

[misslane]

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. And we mostly agree here it is a foolish decision but other places...well...

It's simple: one image features a faceless woman and zooms in on the faceless woman's legs while the other shows a naked woman whose face is proudly displayed with no particular focus to any part of her body. The suggestion that DC is perpetuating the Madonna/Whore dichotomy almost entirely because of social media criticism is ludicrous and woefully unsubstantiated by any of the "proof" you have provided.

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...I wonder at her for wearing rose tinted glasses when it suits her on issues of sexism.

DCWKA doesn't like SM/WW, but her complaints have never been as simple as complaining about Diana being portrayed as a sexual being. The specific tweet you cited did not mention the sexualization of Wonder Woman as an issue. It was the t-shirt that was deemed problematic. Yes, DCWKA doesn't like the ship you like, but you're going to need actual proof that her objections are rooted in disapproving of Diana's sexualization in the title to the near exclusion of everything else. Her specific complaint in this instance is about Diana branding herself with her boyfriend's symbol after sex not the clear implication that sex has occurred.

[Last Son of Krypton]

Both Superman and Wonder Woman are two characters that are difficult to associate with sexuality, probably due to their iconic status as well as their background and/or "life choices": she comes from a women only society and he is depicted as an old fashioned farmboy or an alien who has spent 12 years alone at the north pole. Also, in versions that dealt with the sexuality theme (Smallville and Earth One), Clark grows up afraid to have sex.

[RobinFan4880]

We've seen worse in Catwoman.

[TheDarkNut]

Superman gets laid. Call the media!

Don't know why people are so scared to let Superman act even a bit human. He was raised in Kansas.

[Blacksun]

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.

except that superman editorial had zero to do with Smallville digital comic. And the comic followed on what was shown on the tv show. and the scene isn't sexual or sexy at all.

Rucka didn't draw the scene, he is not at fault for that. many times pencillers go out of the way to include more skin. anyway ask chuck dixon about dinah and babs scene he said: "nothing sexual" and the penciller drew completely sexual

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.

seems like I was right about Soule, and DCWKA was right too. seems like he wasn't joking about that

well if WW have to be in racy scenes, with trevor it is acceptable. marston created the guy to be her love interest, so she will be the one with agency, not the sexual object to make another male hero look cool

The most sexualized image of lois is on all star superman, and it doesn't show much skin. it is very tasteful, also great art by frank quitely

blackest night rucka wrote WW pretty well, better than tomasi and soule together

[The World]

Didn't DCWKA pretty much have a go at Image basically looking for a fight and got destroyed by a couple of it's editors? Memory might be shaky.

[Xarek]

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.

Hate to burst your bubble but David Lopez's panel from WW 220 is the more sexual of the two. The way the panel is framed adds nothing to Rucka's script (and let's face it... Lopez wasn't very good back then). In the panels by David Finch, the focus is not on Diana, the focus is the blood. It is the cleansing of the blood and what it represents for Diana in the context of the story.

[Xarek]

blackest night rucka wrote WW pretty well, better than tomasi and soule together

Agree to completely disagree. Rucka's run on Wonder Woman was Ok (not great). Blackest Night Wonder Woman was a disaster for the character.
But back on topic I agree with some here that DC has the notion that SM and WW have to maintain their chasteness intact. I remember, for example, Alex Ross creating a joke illustration for Byrne of Wonder Woman with Superman's baby. And John freaking out because no way that was happening out of wedlock. On Batman's side this has never been an issue. "Badboys" (Batman or Nightwing) will always get in on with "badgirls" (Catwoman, Talia,etc...). So panels of sexual intercourse in these situations are ok in DC's mind. Despite him being the character to least likely be a good father, he is the father figure (and new52 father) of a big bat family. Go figure!
It is a little one sided but it is what it is. In fact it is a great miracle that the superman/wonder woman book exists in the first place.

[DochaDocha]

Heh, I was just thinking maybe DC saw the preview pencils for #18 and decided that was too racy, too, and in its stead we'll see WW and Superman shaking hands instead.

[misslane]

Hate to burst your bubble but David Lopez's panel from WW 220 is the more sexual of the two. The way the panel is framed adds nothing to Rucka's script (and let's face it... Lopez wasn't very good back then). In the panels by David Finch, the focus is not on Diana, the focus is the blood. It is the cleansing of the blood and what it represents for Diana in the context of the story.

Of course, the blood is a focal point, but the areas of Diana's body that seem to be the most provocative places to show off the blood also happen to include sexually suggestive areas like her legs. In addition, the phenomena of the faceless/headless woman in art or advertising as a means of objectification is well-documented. The panel from the Rucka story portrays a naked woman, but Diana is neither posed is a sexually suggestive way nor are any of her features singled out. Her face is visible, which adds to a presentation that avoids the male gaze. Finch's art could have similarly avoided objectifying its subject and showcased the blood by zeroing in on Diana's hands, feet, arms, and face.

[Blacksun]

Agree to completely disagree. Rucka's run on Wonder Woman was Ok (not great). Blackest Night Wonder Woman was a disaster for the character.
But back on topic I agree with some here that DC has the notion that SM and WW have to maintain their chasteness intact. I remember, for example, Alex Ross creating a joke illustration for Byrne of Wonder Woman with Superman's baby. And John freaking out because no way that was happening out of wedlock. On Batman's side this has never been an issue. "Badboys" (Batman or Nightwing) will always get in on with "badgirls" (Catwoman, Talia,etc...). So panels of sexual intercourse in these situations are ok in DC's mind. Despite him being the character to least likely be a good father, he is the father figure (and new52 father) of a big bat family. Go figure!
It is a little one sided but it is what it is. In fact it is a great miracle that the superman/wonder woman book exists in the first place.

Rucka run was pretty great to me, and I don't see bad characterization on blackest night. the critics to BN always come from the same group of fans, weird no?

you really exagerate on superman chasteness

[Lax]

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.

It's certainly an avalanche of vitrial and double standards directed toward the pairing by SM/LL shippers, however, whether or not this has affected DC's decision making process to a significant degree is another question entirely. Superman and Wonder Woman being a couple at this point in time and for the foreseeable future suggests that whatever affect the vitrial has had is negligible.

[Punisher007]

The pre New-52 comics, as well as other media, made it pretty clear that Superman and Lois had a sex life. So I'm really not seeing where people get the idea is "chaste." And the seeming obsession with WW being so has all kinds of iffy implications.

[t hedge coke]

I'm not really seeing that Finch scene as sexed up in any considerable fashion. There's no emphasis on secondary or primary sexual bodyparts, there's no cheesecake posing, and the emphasis is strongly on her hands, with panels showing her knee in close up, her shoulder, etc. Her palms.

Are her palms really sexualization territory here?

[Xarek]

Of course, the blood is a focal point, but the areas of Diana's body that seem to be the most provocative places to show off the blood also happen to include sexually suggestive areas like her legs. In addition, the phenomena of the faceless/headless woman in art or advertising as a means of objectification is well-documented. The panel from the Rucka story portrays a naked woman, but Diana is neither posed is a sexually suggestive way nor are any of her features singled out. Her face is visible, which adds to a presentation that avoids the male gaze. Finch's art could have similarly avoided objectifying its subject and showcased the blood by zeroing in on Diana's hands, feet, arms, and face.

Again it is all about context and style. A faceless/headless woman doesn't automatically mean sexual innuendo (you need to read up on how important a female's face is to a man's gaze. In any visual medium, a woman's mouth has more visual impact than a cleavage can have, for example. The pout of lips, an open mouth, these are powerful signals for the psyche of the target audience). Other things come into play for illustrators as well: the composition, symmetry, and body language of the subject. In this case note how Lopez uses the curves (hint: all illustrators know female sex appeal = curves; there are many psychological reasons why this is so). Note Diana's head: hair back neck exposed. David Finch not only avoids the erogenous zones but he completely ignores them: the lower bosom is cut off, the lower leg is favored over the thigh and buttocks, and the back is covered by hair and the small of the back is completely out of frame. In both of these cases the poses were not chosen at random. They were done with two different purposes in mind. Note that I am not defending one over the other. I am a firm advocate of an artist's prerogative of communicating whatever the hell he or she wants. I am just expressing why one is "more sexual" than the other. But you really have to go out on a limb (or be extremely prudish) in order to consider either of them as sexual fodder.