Marvel pulls j. Scott Campbell' Riri William Iron Man cover

[Sighphi]

What you're saying is that it's ok for grown men to sexualize teenagers, because of what teenagers do.

what's "sexualized" about it? Cause like i posted, it's the same exact thing as the standard cover.

[Byakko]

what's "sexualized" about it? Cause like i posted, it's the same exact thing as the standard cover.

I think the difference is that she actually looks more like a 15 year old in the variant. Or because it's more cartoony so it makes her look more juvenile, and that disturbs people.

I don't know. My first impression of the character is that her pose looks like it might have been based on a teen girl posing with a volleyball. I am so disappointed the offending cover is actually so innocuous when I Googled it.

Also for comparison: 15 year old with incurable cancer poses for photoshoot, and first photo of her is her in short-shorts and singlet, hands on hips with a twist and swinging her hair.

So, I expect anyone who has objected to the Riri cover, please object to that photoshoot right now. I mean, it would be hypocritical otherwise.

[regg215]

what's "sexualized" about it? Cause like i posted, it's the same exact thing as the standard cover.

While I understand the concern of showing teenagers in that light. There is absolutely nothing different between this cover and the original promotional image that was released for the character month's ago. Pretty much no one complained about that image. To me the issue that people are having with this image is not the cover itself but the artist. J Scott Campbell pretty much always draws overly attractive women and therefore will always be the target of the tumblr/SJW crowd. It's the same as Frank Cho over at DC who was removed from Wonder Woman covers for similar reasons. Despite the fact that the Cho covers were absolutely tame he was removed from the book by the writer due to overly 'sexualized" covers.The original cover is essentially the same image but it wasn't drawn by campbell and therefore there was no outcry.

[Baseman]

What you're saying is that it's ok for grown men to sexualize teenagers, because of what teenagers do.

I suppose you'd also be ok with Campbell drawing and distributing explicit and sexualized deceptions of young teenagers having sex.

If we're going to simplify things to the point where artists are free from criticism if they are drawing something that occurs in real life, you should be fine with it.



...

Is this really what Campbell's thought process was? That if he drew a character in a certain pose (and with a certain body type) that people would be more interested in the character?

Well, the cover's getting a lot of attention. How about showing me all the 15 years old girls that are now interested in the character that weren't before.

The problem seems to be that our opinions on what is considered sexualized. I think the cover is pretty tame.

You situation doesnt work becasuse you painted a scene with is obviously sexualized.While this cover is subjective at best

Maybe,maybe not.My actual point was that life inmates life and you cant criticize one while claiming you have no problem with the other because that would be hypocritical.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

You situation doesnt work becasuse you painted a scene with is obviously sexualized.While this cover is subjective at best

Putting aside whether something is sexualized or not, or whether it's relevant, tour defense was that "Art inmates life", that people can't complain when an artist draws something that actual teenagers are doing.

By that logic, you should be fine with the explicit depiction of young teenagers having sex. It's just art imitating life.

[Tiamatty]

Real sad that this is allowed. This is going to happen again and again from outsiders and then they wonder why comics dont have the big reach they used to have.

Yes, so sad that Marvel listens to feedback. In this case, the feedback of black women who have issues with the larger sexualization of black female bodies in pop culture. Fun fact: These sorts of controversies never happen in a vacuum. If you're not sure why people are upset about something? Look into it. Do the research. Because there's going to be a reason, and it's going to be about larger social issues.

How come one said anything when the standard cover came out?



Its the same exact thing.

I mean, first off, I'm pretty sure some people DID object to that cover. I seem to recall people saying it was making a 15-year-old girl look like she was in her 20s. But even aside from that, there are differences between the two covers. Campbell's cover is pure cheesecake. Caselli's cover is not cheesecake. It's still making her look older than she should, but the intent of the cover is definitely very different from the intent of Campbell's cover.

Campbell's cover was inappropriate for a 15-year-old girl. It's a cover that's going to turn away the black girls who should be the book's audience. Yeah yeah, "it's just a variant," but variant covers still send a message.

Honestly, if Marvel needs variant covers for this book? Find some goddamn black female artists to do them. Forget cheesecake guys like J. Scott Campbell. There are black female artists. Use them.

[Star_Jammer]

Putting aside whether something is sexualized or not, or whether it's relevant, tour defense was that "Art inmates life", that people can't complain when an artist draws something that actual teenagers are doing.

By that logic, you should be fine with the explicit depiction of young teenagers having sex. It's just art imitating life.

I mean, "Kids" was a pretty good movie.

Doesn't mean I condone real life teenagers doing the kinds of things that happened in it...

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

I mean, "Kids" was a pretty good movie.

It was, and its depiction of sex between teenagers had something to say, and it didn't eroticize its deception of sex, and it wasn't completely explicit.

What I'm getting at, is that blanket statements like "Art imitates life" don't work as leaving artists free from criticism for what they choose to depict, and how they choose to depict it.

[Star_Jammer]

It was, and its depiction of sex between teenagers had something to say, and it didn't eroticize its deception of sex, and it wasn't completely explicit.

What I'm getting at, is that blanket statements like "Art imitates life" don't work as leaving artists free from criticism for what they choose to depict, and how they choose to depict it.

Art isn't free from criticism, period, simply because it's art.

Riri isn't in a typical submissive pose, and you've failed to highlight (unless I'm tired and didn't see it) exactly what's sexualized about it. Is it the boobs? Is it the v-shaped abdominal muscles? Is the first image here acceptable?

[Baseman]

Putting aside whether something is sexualized or not, or whether it's relevant, tour defense was that "Art inmates life", that people can't complain when an artist draws something that actual teenagers are doing.

By that logic, you should be fine with the explicit depiction of young teenagers having sex. It's just art imitating life.

You missed my point.I never claimed that you should be injecting ACTUAL sexual content in books.Only that you can't claim that a girl doing a pose is OK,while saying a guy drawing an image of a girl doing a pose is wrong and creepy.

One (seemly) isn't considered sexual while the other is.That's a double standard that is present here.This is what I'm trying to get at.

Hard to put aside sexualization point since its the core of the issue.

[Sighphi]

Yes, so sad that Marvel listens to feedback. In this case, the feedback of black women who have issues with the larger sexualization of black female bodies in pop culture. Fun fact: These sorts of controversies never happen in a vacuum. If you're not sure why people are upset about something? Look into it. Do the research. Because there's going to be a reason, and it's going to be about larger social issues.

I did do research. I saw the other depictions and covers of the character and saw no difference. Why is this the focal point of the issue?

I mean, first off, I'm pretty sure some people DID object to that cover. I seem to recall people saying it was making a 15-year-old girl look like she was in her 20s.

Can you link articles discussing this?

But even aside from that, there are differences between the two covers. Campbell's cover is pure cheesecake. Caselli's cover is not cheesecake. It's still making her look older than she should, but the intent of the cover is definitely very different from the intent of Campbell's cover.

what's "cheesecake" about it? It mirrors the pose of the standard cover minus the hand up and the head looking to the side.

Campbell's cover was inappropriate for a 15-year-old girl. It's a cover that's going to turn away the black girls who should be the book's audience. Yeah yeah, "it's just a variant," but variant covers still send a message.

How do you know a variant cover available from one retailer is going to turn away black girls?

Honestly, if Marvel needs variant covers for this book? Find some goddamn black female artists to do them. Forget cheesecake guys like J. Scott Campbell. There are black female artists. Use them.

So this is the issue, you are using this as a platform to complain about whatever you can.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

Art isn't free from criticism, period, simply because it's art.

Yes, and the point I was making was in response to another poster saying people couldn't complain about the variant cover, because it depicts what actual teenagers do.

You missed my point.I never claimed that you should be injecting ACTUAL sexual content in books.Only that you can't claim that a girl doing a pose is OK,while saying a guy drawing an image of a girl doing a pose is wrong and creepy.

Hard to put aside sexualization point since its the core of the issue.

Your point, your line of logic is that "Art imitates life". People can't complain about something, if it depicts something that many people actually do.

If we go with this standard, you should be fine with any kind of depiction of young teenagers having sex, because teenagers have sex.

Or, are you now saying that people can complain about what an artist choose to depict and how they choose to depict it, even if it's something that occurs regularly in the real world?

[Baseman]

Yes, and the point I was making was in response to another poster saying people couldn't complain about the variant cover, because it depicts what actual teenagers do.



Your point, your line of logic is that "Art imitates life". People can't complain about something, if it depicts something that many people actually do.

If we go with this standard, you should be fine with any kind of depiction of young teenagers having sex, because teenagers have sex.

Or, are you now saying that people can complain about what an artist choose to depict and how they choose to depict it, even if it's something that occurs regularly in the real world?

I'll clear up my position once again.I'm I saying everything should be allowed.No.

The point I was responing to was your claim that there is a diffence between 'a woman expressing herself' and the cover.

My point was that its pretty unfair to say that when a woman does it its okay.But when a man depicts that its sexualizing

Why then are these photos of teen girls on Facebook considered normal then.Why is it when a man draws something similar to that its considered creepy?



Admittedly my point didn't come across very well.So I apologize for that.

[dimo1]

Maybe I am too old, too European, but I cannot see anything sexualized in the Campbell cover.
Plus, have people ever looked outside and checked what teens are wearing?
I am a teacher and lecturer, so I see hundreds, if not thousands of teenage girls a day, compared to what they are wearing the cover is relatively modest.
On top of that, yes a lot of teens have sex. Seems hard to fathom for some prudish people, but you should open your eyes and get over with.

[Iron Maiden]

Much ado about very little. I guess some people never go to the mall or parks in the summertime. I'm a woman and I don't see anything wrong especially when these kinds of clothes are sold in the stores for teen girls. At least she is wearing long pants. I've seen some very brief shorts on teen girls and their moms buy them for them. J.Scott Campbell is not just a "pin up artist". He did ASM covers for years when JMS was on the title. And a few FF variants as I recall. Holy spit, I've seen yoga pants on older women that really don't look that good. What RiRi is wearing is kind of a cross between work out wear and just summer casual. She's in a lab kind of setting not strutting a catwalk.

Here's a page from JC Penney summer clearance and there's a bandeau top listed for Juniors towards the bottom. JC Penney is pretty mainstream.