"Too Racy"? Your thoughts

[Xarek]

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

If by same group of fans you mean Wonder Woman fans, then yes.

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.

As was noted by others on this thread it hasn't always been so. It was after Superman's marriage to Lois that his intimate love life was depicted in any meaningful way. And Smallville is an entirely different thing altogether (Lana first, then shoehorned Lois ltr). Bats on the other hand... top of my head, Catwoman #1, Robin Rises Omega... Whole different beast. It might not be what I want for Superman, but it is what DC is aiming for.

[misslane]

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?

It's the combination of the lack of individualization (faceless) with the close up on the leg that presents as the most problematic examples of sexual objectification.

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).

The phenomena of the faceless/sexless woman in media and advertising isn't just something I pulled out of thin air. It's a legitimate issue debated in feminist scholarship. The absence of a face on a female subject (or any subject) serves to present the individual in a more impersonal and more objectified manner.

The Faceless Female is a cultural trope employed heavily in advertising, porn, and basically all kinds of media where female bodies (especially naked or scantily clad ones) are used. On one level this refers to the tendency in media to show women, sexualized ones, as just a body which is then basically used to sell something. The faceless female is a visual example of the way our society has turned the female presenting body into a commodity that can be used and consumed. The face can actually be featured, but it is not the focus. This contrasts with men in advertising and media who are presented as whole people with autonomy over their own bodies, while women are commonly shown as just a body, or even reduced further down to a single body part.

Source: https://fortysevenlegs.wordpress.com...-are-consumed/.

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).

Lopez uses curves, but the curves are not exaggerated. No particular area of Diana's body is a focal point.

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.

Yes, Finch avoids some erogenous zones, but he does feature Diana's legs and neck area. Also, one must consider that erogenous zones are what are pleasurable to the receiver not the perceiver so, in truth, it may be more apt to reconsider erogenous zones in favor of parts of the body men find attractive, which do include the back and legs.

The primary issue, however, is the depersonalization of Diana by obscuring her face.

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.

To me it's not exactly an issue of sexualization but of objectification. Diana appears strong and fully herself in the Lopez image. The reader can recognize her. The Finch image could be of any woman, which lends to the objectification of the character depicted in the image.

[Xarek]

It's the combination of the lack of individualization (faceless) with the close up on the leg that presents as the most problematic examples of sexual objectification.

The phenomena of the faceless/sexless woman in media and advertising isn't just something I pulled out of thin air. It's a legitimate issue debated in feminist scholarship. The absence of a face on a female subject (or any subject) serves to present the individual in a more impersonal and more objectified manner.

The Faceless Female is a cultural trope employed heavily in advertising, porn, and basically all kinds of media where female bodies (especially naked or scantily clad ones) are used. On one level this refers to the tendency in media to show women, sexualized ones, as just a body which is then basically used to sell something. The faceless female is a visual example of the way our society has turned the female presenting body into a commodity that can be used and consumed. The face can actually be featured, but it is not the focus. This contrasts with men in advertising and media who are presented as whole people with autonomy over their own bodies, while women are commonly shown as just a body, or even reduced further down to a single body part.

I think you are taking the words of the article too literally. A "faceless female" doesn't automatically mean a woman is a objectified. Context is everything. For instance, in some images it can mean anonymity, in others fear, a hidden agenda, or deceit. This is off topic and I could go on and on about this since this is my field, but I can tell you with 100 certainty, that there is no objectification on David's part on this scene. There are other scenes that he has done were he has. But not this one.

Look at your chart again... David Finch depicts none of these zones!!

[misslane]

I think you are taking the words of the article too literally. A "faceless female" doesn't automatically mean a woman is a objectified. Context is everything. For instance, in some images it can mean anonymity, in others fear, a hidden agenda, or deceit. This is off topic and I could go on and on about this since this is my field, but I can tell you with 100 certainty, that there is no objectification on David's part on this scene. There are other scenes that he has done were he has. But not this one.

Look at your chart again... David Finch depicts none of them!!

Your claim of authority is dubious at best, considering it cannot be verified. Furthermore, it can also be a logical fallacy (source). I remain unconvinced that the faceless nature doesn't add to the objectification of Diana in Finch's work. As for the chart, it's rather basic due to my desire to find one that was appropriate to post (i.e. no nudity) but descriptions of erogenous zones do indeed indicate that the knee area Diana is caressing with her hand and the area of her back that includes the upper neck area are not only areas men have reported as being most attractive to them in women but also erogenous zones for women. In other words, it's best we agree to disagree. Out of respect for your desire to stay on topic, and my desire not to send you any unwanted private messages, I leave it up to you to contact me privately if you'd like to discuss this further.

[Xarek]

Your claim of authority is dubious at best, considering it cannot be verified. Furthermore, it can also be a logical fallacy (source). I remain unconvinced that the faceless nature doesn't add to the objectification of Diana in Finch's work. As for the chart, it's rather basic due to my desire to find one that was appropriate to post (i.e. no nudity) but descriptions of erogenous zones do indeed indicate that the knee area Diana is caressing with her hand and the area of her back that includes the upper neck area are not only areas men have reported as being most attractive to them in women but also erogenous zones for women. In other words, it's best we agree to disagree. Out of respect for your desire to stay on topic, and my desire not to send you any unwanted private messages, I leave it up to you to contact me privately if you'd like to discuss this further.

Thanks for making me laugh. I just wanted to give you some peace of mind but, yeah, agree to disagree I guess.
Back to our regular program.

[Jon-El]

If they want to rid the public of the idea that "comics are for kids", they missed an opportunity cutting this scene.

[Typhoeus]

I read most of the thread and I had a good laugh (kind of). Between the arguments about Clark and Diana being too 'pure' to be depicted in a sexual situation and the idea that DC would be afraid to condone premarital sex...all I gather is that the 1950s are back; Frederick Wertham would be proud. The comic code authority might not appear on the cover of smww comics but it is certainly present in the mind of DC's editorial board.
Is this new puritan era induced by concern over the appeal of their most valued properties to a larger audience or the fear of 'online outrage'? I couldn't tell. It's probably a combination of factors. Nevertheless, it remains that after over a decade of overtly 'sexual innuendos' in the Superman franchise (between Clark and Lois) and three decades of 'abstinence' for Wonder Woman, the current policy at DC forbids two adults in a monogamous relationship too display basic intimacy (and I thought their 'anti-marriage' policy was bad).
Honestly, I don't think they want Clark and Diana to have a relationship but merely a 'high-school fling'.
Such a shame really.

[hellacre]

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.



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.

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/...-the-man-thing

No she isn't. You're making excuses for her as you're trying to actually condemn a woman walking out of a shower in her own apartment in a towel. I have no problem with any shot. I shake my head at those who try to make excuses to say one is worse than the other.

She is contradicting herself nicely here in her most recent post. Yesterday it went up. She's rather late but hey nothing like gossip and knee jerk ranting to rile people up.

She claims she wants Diana be a sexual being but in her eyes only one man should define that sexuality. Steve. Never mind Diana's never been written well with Steve even when she was with him hence his lack of impact in her narrative. No woman's sexuality should be defined by one man. A woman could have any relationship she wants or not. Here the fact is Diana is in an adult committed relationship and it is sexual. She actually is making a point to compare this to the Batman/Catwoman sex scene. She totally avoids the important issue about the context of the image in the story and she ridicules Tony S Daniel. We have here most people agree it is a tame image...the reasons why it was axed varies but most agree they have no idea why DC thought the need to do it because it does not violate the T rating. The she starts on Doug Mahnke and Peter Tomasi. She makes it a point again to say that it is stealing from Lois which she always slips in there as she did with the cape issue. She is very happy to have Lois branded by Superman. Because that is iconic apparently. Lois branded as Superman's girlfriend is not problematic. That is very acceptable. Lois as a character is struggling to come out of Superman's shadow as we all know while Diana is a character that sells books on her name so not even sure why this insecurity about branding. She worrying about the wrong woman, I'd say. She makes the point she always does of saying that what they doing as a couple is not original. It's stealing from Lois and Clark. So only Lois is allowed to lie in bed next to Clark with a S tee shirt. You know I have right now 3 Superman tees, as a female walking around in it I must be so weak. I must be branded by any pop culture image I wear and so must a strong, confident woman as Diana. She's even asking about Clark's sigil on his chest if it is a tattoo. Yeah she sure reads Superman. A case of someone ranting about a book she does not read, does not really know how the relationship has been built etc and yet swift to use intimate images to decry the book. And of course make sure to drag in Lois and Clark.

My goodness the double standard is so hilarious.

[t hedge coke]

hellacre, I do think you're redirecting a lot of what they're saying at DCWKA to fit a particular agenda, but aside from that, what's wrong with her shipping, if/when she is? Is she not allowed to engage as a fan? As a reader?

And, how does that mean she's anti-sex or anti-sexuality?

I remain unconvinced that the faceless nature doesn't add to the objectification of Diana in Finch's work.

If Finch always portrayed her facelessly, but I can't see that page as remotely sexual. If anything, it's sad. I don't see it as dehumanizing, either, any more than it dehumanizes Bruce Wayne when we see a shot of his back all scarred and burned from years as a superhero. The water falling from the showerhead, the blood washing away, the emphasis on her hands, growing down the page to that largest image of her cupped hands catching the water... I have a hard time believing anyone's going to be sexually excited by this or that it turns Diana into just a body, or a collection of parts for titillation.

I'm not saying it can't be that, I just don't see it at all.

[hellacre]

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.

hahaha. She'll be sitting on a chair like the good Florence Nightingale character she is while he lies in bed...instead of her lying close to him.

[hellacre]

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?

Oh I was on the WW messageboard when it hit and I recall people many WW fans ( who never shipped sm/ww...if you were around stop acting disingenuous as if you don't know who the posters were who were baffled and irritated by it. Even Brett felt like ripping the page out and sending it to DC if I recall with no thank you written on it...he didn't but he did acknowledge how foolish it was ) Of course you never had a problem with the aspect that irritated the WW fans.

[GuiltyPleasure]

Sex and sexuality, whether in media or reality, are hot-button issues that touch on people's socio-cultural and religious beliefs. It is also so very subjective, yet easy to get angry over, happy about, or debate. IMO, there is nothing "too racy" about Daniel's image, but I also like a bit of spice to my romances, regardless of the medium. And, thus far, there hasn't been much, if any, spice in the intimacy department between Diana and Clark. So, for me, that aspect of their relationship has been pretty boring.

When I first saw Daniel's pic, I couldn't help but wonder why he posted it. After, of course, smiling like a fiend at finally seeing something I wanted to see in the SMWW book for so long. I guess I only wondered because it came a few days, maybe a week, after Mankhe's bed scene, which, while an intimate image, isn't necessarily a sexual one on the same level as Daniel's. Again, that's my subjective interpretation of the images. There is something more sweet than sexual about Mankhe's pic to me, mainly because Clark is asleep and looks so damn exhausted. And Diana, while intimately close, hand over his bare chest, body curled into Clark's, is clothed and seems to be watching over him. I can't tell if she fell asleep while watching Clark sleep or whether her eyes are simply downcast. Whichever it may be, I don't get much of a sexual vibe from the image. Daniel's pic is definitely sexual in nature, which I find refreshing and tastefully done.

But I do wonder about the timing of his posting. Not the topic for this thread, I know, but I thought it worth throwing out there. Since, his posting and declaration the image got the cut because DC deemed it "too racy" is the reason for so much SMWW forum chatter these past few days.

[t hedge coke]

Oh I was on the WW messageboard when it hit and I recall people many WW fans ( who never shipped sm/ww...if you were around stop acting disingenuous as if you don't know who the posters were who were baffled and irritated by it. Even Brett felt like ripping the page out and sending it to DC if I recall with no thank you written on it...he didn't but he did acknowledge how foolish it was ) Of course you never had a problem with the aspect that irritated the WW fans.

What was the BN issue? I don't remember the main series at all, really, but her mini... nothing horrendously OOC or offensive comes to mind.

[hellacre]

hellacre, I do think you're redirecting a lot of what they're saying at DCWKA to fit a particular agenda, but aside from that, what's wrong with her shipping, if/when she is? Is she not allowed to engage as a fan? As a reader?

And, how does that mean she's anti-sex or anti-sexuality?

.

Absolutely nothing wrong with her shipping what she wants and saying how much she loathes SM/WW...I said made that clear. My issue is sites along with this blog and Comic Alliance and marysue who have condemned that Diana shower scene making these generalized claims on behalf of women and attacking it as sexism and misogyny for years now and wanting DC to conform to what they think is acceptable. As someone who buys this book I have a huge issue with anyone implying I or the many females I know who follow this book are sexist and a misogynist. And quick to dismiss me as a man...even though I am a woman...and not interested in other women may actually have other povs. Try to have any discussion and you're blocked. I have had that experience.

So have your agenda sure...god people can want Diana an eternal virgin if they want that too...but have some respect for the pov's of other fans who might think differently to you. Issues of sexism and misogyny are serious and be handled in a way that does not try to lynch other fans or ridicule them.

[hellacre]

What was the BN issue? I don't remember the main series at all, really, but her mini... nothing horrendously OOC or offensive comes to mind.

Where Diana was changed into a Black Lantern and she fights Mera. In an illusion she brutally kills her mother, Donna and Cassie but the Goddess Aphrodite gives her an illusion of Batman who stops her without any effort and then kisses her and she gets herself back. It is implied she was still hung up on Bats. Status quo wise, he was dead and he'd long professed his love to Selina already and she was courting Tom. The little batman/ww flirtation I think happened years before so some fans were confused at the implication that her own mother or sister were useless but Batman who she never had any relationship with was used to bring her to life.