trinityvixen | In the spirit of mending rather than tearing apart...

ETA: Oh God. The phrase, "But, yeah, fanboy homophobia is the gift that keeps on giving, isn't it? It's not your father's gay panic, that's for sure," is so awesome. Because apparently MJ can't show off her panties hard enough just by wearing them outside her pants, but draw a superhero with a PENIS and you have got problems. Hilarious. Personally, I'm just waiting for comics to acknowledge or at least address whatever FABULOUS support that superheroines are using to get their tits so perky. Are those built into the suits or what?

After my last post, I was thinking about what we could do with future tributes to comic characters and their infallibly sexy bods that would be less objectionable than what was done to Mary-Jane. Mostly? I'd just like to see a coy, sexy statuette of a character celebrate her own enjoyment of herself and her body independently of the male gaze.

And having it actually be sexy as opposed to a grotesque adorned with items associated with sex would be a big step. You know how you could make a sexy statuette of Mary-Jane that still related her to Spider-Man (in case the people shelling out $100-200 for the statue somehow didn't know)? Have it just be her, relaxing, smiling, being happy and maybe, I dunno, wearing a button-up shirt with her chest exposed so you could see she was wearing the Spidey suit underneath. I've generally heard/found that guys really do find women wearing their clothing pretty damned hot. Plus, you'd have the pizzaz and audacity of Mary-Jane--having lifted what is obviously a pretty important piece of clothing from her spouse--right on display. It conveys a much more lively sense of humor and engagement on the part of the character being viewed such that, while, yes, you can ogle her tits and spend as much time as you like running fingers over her bum, the enjoyment of the character as sexy is side-by-side with the character as person, with all the thoughts, humor, and attitude thereof (as opposed to the pornified crap they churned out with this last one).

And then? I'd like to request a whole line of statues of heroes in the hero pose with their masks off. Because that shit is hot, too.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

ecmyers.livejournal.com

This is a pretty decent MJ statue, which gets a lot more of her character across. But then, you always have images like this, which is kind of cute but plays to the stereotype, and this.

From:

hslayer.livejournal.com

That last pic rocks. Also, I'd want that statue everyone is griping about if her face looked better in it.

Seriously, TV, this is why femenism doesn't gain any traction. Here you have something so obviously utterly ridiculous it doesn't even merit attention, and people (not only you) are launching a crusade over it. It makes you look as silly as the statue does to be taking it so seriously.

Anyway, I know I'm more in touch with (and okay with) my baser instincts than many of my friends, but really, is a little bit of satisfaction of prurient interests not a little okay, when it doesn't even involve a real woman? (I ask the person who loves gory zombie movies....)

From:

hslayer.livejournal.com

I should also note that you've utterly missed the point by saying that it should be sexy "independent of the male gaze". It's a fucking statue. It gets gazed upon. That's what it's for. It can't actually - what was it that sounded like masturbation? - "celebrate [its] own enjoyment of [itself] and [its] body".

From:

trinityvixen.livejournal.com

It's art. Art should have active involvement, and the most moving artworks create connection between viewer and viewed. Look at the painting Matt linked to on my last post--the model there being perfectly at ease and yet still on display is miles from the MJ Barbie being twisted and bent over with her ass and tits thrust out. That's what I mean about the male gaze versus the self-aware subject being sexy. There's nothing about the way MJ is crafted in this statuette to suggest the character isn't just a Real Doll that someone got to stand up. It's not that I want her masturbating for fuck's sake, just that I think she's be WAY more sexy and still in character if she were displaying herself with a more knowing, involved posture (this is just "Come get me, big boy" rearing which is pornographic and most people don't put their porn out on their bookshelf).

When a statue is crafted for a male character, it's rendered lovingly, with detail bent on elucidating his character, his ability, et al because that's why you want the statue in the first place, right? Because it's a character you really like. If you really like the character of Mary-Jane, this is a fucking insult. What about this captures her personality or behaviors that you like in comics well enough to shell out the $125 for the statue? Instead of celebrating her, its exploiting her and rejoicing in the fact that, no matter how hot, how financially or emotionally independent she is, MJ is still just a bitch and bitches do my laundry.

From:

hslayer.livejournal.com

It's not art. It's mass-produced shlock. It's porn. It wasn't lovingly crafted. It was designed with a goal in mind (a goal they achieved, considering it's sold out at that price in spite of not shipping for months yet). You might as well complain that a television ad doesn't have good cinematography, or that a monster truck rally isn't well choreographed.

If you accept that, then there's no reason to take any more offense at it than at any other porn. It's not going to be purchased by proper "fans" of MJ, and there are enough people who are simply hot for MJ to sell it out in preorder at that outrageous price. I can see the problem there, but I don't see why it warrants more than a sigh and an eyeroll.

Newsflash, there's not actually a "her" to exploit. She's a character, a creation, a piece of intellectual property. That's what you're getting offended over. A real woman could choose not to be exploited, but in real life (where this statue exists), she's nothing. It's not even like they've written into the comic that she behaves this way, which might be like exploiting the her that "exists". This is more like if someone drew a picture of you doing something you never did. That's not exploiting you; the closest it might come is mocking you. If you're a big MJ fan, I suppose you'd be annoyed at the mockery, but it still isn't a big deal.

This is all aside from the fact that you could simply choose to see it in a less obnoxious light and you aren't. The first thing Matt said in the other post was, "it's a fantasy." Couples consentually engage in sexual fantasy role-playing all the time, and if they're mentally healthy they recognize that it's got nothing to do with real life. Maybe Peter Parker had this fantasy and she was willing to oblige this once. That might sound far fetched, but it's certainly no more so than assuming that she actually dresses like that and hand-washes his costume regularly.

From:

trinityvixen.livejournal.com

If you accept that, then there's no reason to take any more offense at it than at any other porn.

Therein lies some of why we disagree. I think there's a way to make porn titillating but also not as degrading as it is notorious for being. This involves changing attitudes so that men would be more turned on by people and not things with vaginas. This can be done. Raising objections to the porn that doesn't do that is only part of it. We should object to objectification and rightfully shun it. The work of changing attitudes is more subtle, that's all.

I can see the problem there, but I don't see why it warrants more than a sigh and an eyeroll.

Because someone felt this was okay to shove out into the public eye. I know we can't control our fantasies. Everyone has them. But you can avoid making people uncomfortable. This is like how people (mostly guys) tell me not to get bothered by strange men on the street hitting on me/making comments about my appearance. First off, your fiancee will tell you that you can't control what pisses you off (you can control your reaction, which I do). Secondly, I never asked or invited such commentary (and, no, it doesn't matter what you wear in this case; it only makes it more understandable if someone gets a signal from it but does not excuse THEIR behavior). Third? I HAVE THE GODDAMNED RIGHT TO WALK DOWN THE FUCKING STREET WITHOUT BEING REMINDED THAT I COULD BE FUCKED IF THIS PERSON CHOSE IT. That's not flattering; that's creepy.

Newsflash, there's not actually a "her" to exploit.She's a character, a creation, a piece of intellectual property. That's what you're getting offended over.

Wow. You're right. I shouldn't object at all to women being represented in such unflattering lights. So long as it's fictional, I'm sure that it will, in no way, be indicative of the attitudes towards woman that the creator and purchasers have. Nope. It's just a fantasy, right? Fantasies have nothing to do with attitudes.

This is more like if someone drew a picture of you doing something you never did. That's not exploiting you

The hell it isn't. It's exploitation if it's taking some character trait I do not have nor espouse and that might be extremely personal (I think my choice of underwear--if I don't normally flash it outside my pants--counts as personal) and throwing it out for the world to see. Using "my" "fame" as a lure to leer at a girl. How is that not exploitative and violating?

Maybe Peter Parker had this fantasy and she was willing to oblige this once.

But the statue is divorced from any such context. The whole thing is calculated to remove any such emotional content--we do not see that this is Mary-Jane doing a flirt for her husband because she loves him; this is someone drawing what he thinks is the female body, doing something he wants done to move himself.

From:

hslayer.livejournal.com

This involves changing attitudes so that men would be more turned on by people and not things with vaginas. This can be done.

No, I don't think it can be done. I think it's not possible to change something as basic as what people find sexually arousing without a eugenics campaign. What you're describing as a preferable style is exactly the sort of thing women typically find attractive, while what you're railing against is the sort of thing men typically find attractive. I just don't believe that either is right or wrong, and I don't think it has much to do with attitude. This is why sexual fantasies often are so far removed from one's day-to-day life and other beliefs and values. That detachment is real, and well-documented.

I HAVE THE GODDAMNED RIGHT TO WALK DOWN THE FUCKING STREET WITHOUT BEING REMINDED THAT I COULD BE FUCKED IF THIS PERSON CHOSE IT.

I don't think that marketing this statue has anything to do with directed harassment, I'm not sure how you got off on that tangent, and by drawing that parallel you're using exactly the same type of argument that people who strongly favor censorship (of anything) use. The claim that porno offends them just by the covers being displayed for sale at the newsstand is not considered valid. Society expects people not to be so thin-skinned.

It's just a fantasy, right? Fantasies have nothing to do with attitudes.

As I said, many fantasies do, in fact, have nothing to do with attitudes. In addition, the creators and purchasers are a tiny subset of all people, none of whom are likely people whose opinions or attitudes matter anyway. And my comment that she isn't a real person was a directed reply to your statements that Mary Jane herself was being exploited.

How is that not exploitative and violating?

Because it wouldn't be you, and everyone would know it. As I said, they aren't even writing this sort of behavior from Mary Jane into the comics, so why not just view the statue as an absurd fabrication? When celebrities are mocked on SNL or South Park, no one claims to being exploited (or any who do are mocked all the more). This could easily be seen as the same sort of thing.

But the statue is divorced from any such context.

As I said, it's divorced from ALL context. The only context that's present is what you choose to apply to it. You've chosen to apply one that fans the flames of your rage instead of one that quenches them.

I'm just saying that it's not ONLY possible to have anything but revulsion for this piece or works like it if one honestly believes that women should be both love and work slaves of men. It's entirely possible to hold women in high esteem and still see something like this and find it hot.

From:

chuckro.livejournal.com

This involves changing attitudes so that men would be more turned on by people and not things with vaginas. This can be done.

I'm with you for most of this, but this line goes just a little too far. Who are you to dictate what other people find arousing? How would this be different from an actor you lust after saying, "I need to change fans' attitudes so that they're aroused by my romantic gestures and not my angry eyebrows"?

I'll freely admit that I'm turned on by "things with vaginas" (defining "things" as "humans of a certain age range"), and that can spark my sexual curiousity more than "actual people" can. I'm visually biased, and I tend to have emotional connections lead more into talk/comfort/cuddle mode than "Sex you up!" mode. It's just the way I am. It doesn't stop me from having a good relationship, emotionally or sexually. Why should I even try to change that, even if it were possible?

From:

trinityvixen.livejournal.com

Who are you to dictate what other people find arousing?

Not trying to, but I am trying to reform attitudes. I don't ascribe to the philosophy that people (specifically men) are visually biased. We all are--at first--attracted by sight, I do believe that. There've been studies proving that, so I can't deny it. I would just rather encourage people who are using cheap entertainment to enjoy it for more than the shallow sight of a bunch of strangers having fake sex. Granted, this won't change people resorting to such things always, but if it were a little less frequent, that would be nice.

How would this be different from an actor you lust after saying, "I need to change fans' attitudes so that they're aroused by my romantic gestures and not my angry eyebrows"?

I don't buy pictures/statuettes/movies of said actor pleasuring himself for my own enjoyment? I guess it's the prude in me, but I'd prefer it if you need to lust after someone--real or not--you did so in your head with suggestive material and not create pornographic material to do it.

That sounds really anti-porn, but I'm not actually opposed to porn as a general rule.

'll freely admit that I'm turned on by "things with vaginas" (defining "things" as "humans of a certain age range"), and that can spark my sexual curiousity more than "actual people" can.

So long as you admit that people with vaginas are people, I have no problem with this. That's the point. We agree on that? We're good. I, personally, am turned on by people with penises. I just try to remember that they're also people and that, were I to assualt any of a half-dozen or so actors I talk about on a routine basis, this would probably not be okay with them. In fact, it would be wrong. ::nods emphatically::

From:

chuckro.livejournal.com

I don't ascribe to the philosophy that people (specifically men) are visually biased.

This is not to be rude, but: You're not a man. This is just as presumptious as me making proclamations about what women do or don't feel.

I think we're on similar tracks here, but I think you're saying, either "This doesn't exist" or "This is an artifical construct and shouldn't exist", and what I'm saying is "This exists and has its place, which isn't everywhere."

I would just rather encourage people who are using cheap entertainment to enjoy it for more than the shallow sight of a bunch of strangers having fake sex.

I think you're right to try to encourage people to have more fulfilling fantasy lives, but your personal biases are really obscuring your motives and make them seem rather impure. Does that make sense?

I guess it's the prude in me, but I'd prefer it if you need to lust after someone--real or not--you did so in your head with suggestive material and not create pornographic material to do it.

See, I have no problem with that. I draw the line at putting said pornographic material on display where I have to see it if I don't want to. Everyone is entitled to their fantasies, and fantasies in text, or pictures, or video, are fantasies nonetheless. I find Kirk/Spock slash disturbing, but as long as the websites with it are labeled and noone leaves it on their coffee table when I come over, what business is it of mine?

Also, for the record, I see virtually no difference between erotic stories, erotic art, and porn videos.

So long as you admit that people with vaginas are people, I have no problem with this. That's the point. We agree on that? We're good.

Well, duh. People are people, regardless of their genitalia. All I'm saying is that my body is happier to ignore that while I'm looking at the bosoms on the interwebs. And that doesn't make me a bad person if that doesn't impact how I treat the actual person.

From:

hslayer.livejournal.com

I can only speak for myself, not for all men, but it is much better when there's emotional as well as raw sexual involvement. But that's just not feasible when it comes to porn. They could make all porn feature-length with the sex only at the end, after lots of character development, but that wouldn't make it better, in spite of what I just said. There are a number of reasons:

I don't think it'd add enough emotional investment to matter. It's not even interactive; you're still just watching. Even media that are interactive don't add much emotional investment. (Think silly Japanese computer sex games.)

I don't think it'd add even as much emotional investment as people have in the characters of a non-porn movie. It'd still be porn, and presumably someone would only even start watching when the goal was to get off, so they're only going to have sex on their mind the entire time. (And most will probably just skip to the sex.)

Is it really better if people get emotionally invested when they are only watching something for the sake of their own gratification? Seems like that would make the compartmentalization of "watching porn to get off" and "having sex within a meaningful relationship" blurrier. Not necessarily in the way you want.

It'd be a hassle. This is a purely utilitarian objection, but at least with porn you can satisfy a need and get on with your life in a few minutes. It wouldn't be as big an issue now as when I was a teenager, but if I had to invest 90 minutes or more every time I wanted to get off, I'd never have gotten anything done!

I think most people are capable of partitioning sexual desire from "real" emotion to the extent necessary to indulge in porn or fantasy or whatever without breaking that link entirely, which would also be unhealthy. This is why I don't think there are any deep implications in the MJ statue (which *is* porn) or any of the rest of it. And this is why I don't see any reason to reform attitudes. You think pornography reflects actual attitudes, desires, and values people carry over into their everyday lives. As someone who watches an awful lot of porn and maintains a healthy, loving relationship, I can tell you, it REALLY doesn't. One has nothing at all to do with the other.

From:

wellgull.livejournal.com

Therein lies some of why we disagree. I think there's a way to make porn titillating but also not as degrading as it is notorious for being.

This is exactly what I was talking about at your other post. It involves the women actually enjoying what they're doing instead of being set pieces.

The larger cultural issue here is that men need to realize consciously what they already respond to subconsciously -- they want to have sex with women who want sex. You wouldn't want to watch a porno made at gunpoint; you don't pay a hooker to sit there and look bored.

From:

trinityvixen.livejournal.com

The larger cultural issue here is that men need to realize consciously what they already respond to subconsciously -- they want to have sex with women who want sex.

Which ties in with yet another feminist goal: The recognition and acceptance of the fact that women do want to have sex and are perfectly in their right as humans to have it when and with whom they please.

From:

trinityvixen.livejournal.com

You know what the problem is, really? Is that it's your fantasy put out on display. If this is some private wank material, fine, but this is a display item. You really want people coming into your house where you have that out for all to see? It's like advertising your inability to relate to women as people. This one is so bad because she's not exaggerated the way other heroines of the comics are so that the point that she's super or special isn't made and therefore excused because she's stylized. There's just enough physically wrong with her yet she's dressed in the common setting to confuse the interest.

I think this merits a little attention. Saying there are other things to invest feminism's time in isn't wrong but that doesn't mean that women who find this degrading are wrong to take issue with it. Especially as a lot of women who want to be involved in comics are already being bashed over the head with the male-gaze-centric material in the medium.

From:

hslayer.livejournal.com

I'd just say, consider the sort of person who'd have this in their living room. They aren't likely to have any friends to come over and see it except for more of the sort who'd have it in their living room. (I'm sure we can all think of one or two people we know who'd fit the bill. How eager are you to pay them a visit?)

I think it should be beneath your notice. It may be related to my belief that people who are easily offended deserve to be offended often, but I really think it's not worth finding degrading. It's too stupid to find degrading. It'd be like finding Beavis and Butt-Head's comments about "chicks" degrading. You don't because they're idiots. Well, the people who designed the statue are idiots (or just greedy). The people who bought it are idiots (I say in spite of admitting that with a minor change I might've - but I can damn sure be an idiot at times). So don't even bother with them. It's better for your mental health if you minimize even indirect contact with idiots.

From:

viridian.livejournal.com

... I think you need to keep in mind that you're ranting at someone that I had to make take down his scantily clothed anime girls off the walls under the threat that I was going to start putting up my slashy anime boys all over the place. :D?

From:

trinityvixen.livejournal.com

LOL. If you could find that Kenshin yaoi picture again, I'd blow it up to poster size for you. You know, the one you don't remember asking Carrie and I to take down if you suddenly died so your mother wouldn't see?

From:

hslayer.livejournal.com

It wasn't anime! It was Danger Girl and Gen13 lithographs by J. Scott Campbell! I was actually going to link to them in a post to make a point earlier, but they're old and I couldn't find pics online. (Okay, I found a pic of one of them, but I really wanted to link both.)

Point being, even I had enough taste not to have had them up in the living room.

From:

trinityvixen.livejournal.com

That first one is boring, but not objectionable. That last picture is actually not so bad if not for the fact she's gotta have most of her boobs exposed. I dunno from Peter Parker, but it would be a lot more suggestive (and therefore sexy) were that shirt being teased upward with less exposure in that drawing.

But that's sorta what I'm talking about with MJ in the Spidey costume. It's hot!

From:

linaerys.livejournal.com

That's an awesome idea, and it would be hot in a playful way, rather than in a pornified way.

From:

trinityvixen.livejournal.com

I see no reason Mary-Jane can't be femme and fabulous at the same time. My impression of her from comics is that she is all that and more.

From:

saikogrrl.livejournal.com

LOL @ that 'afraid of the cock' article. XD

From:

trinityvixen.livejournal.com

I enjoyed "WANG WATCH 2007" myself (it's in the homophobia quote article if you scroll down). Fantastic.

But yes, how can one not enjoy "AFRAID OF THE COCK"? Such a perfect title.

From:

droidguy1119.livejournal.com

marriedtothesea.com

From:

trinityvixen.livejournal.com

Interesting :)

From:

hslayer.livejournal.com

It'd be funnier if not for the fact that, based on typical voter turnout, most people do, in fact, hate voting.

From:

stars-fell.livejournal.com

I can't stop laughing over all this. I have no clue why.

From:

trinityvixen.livejournal.com

Probably because it's all stupid? I mean, the sexist MJ statue is MEAN and degrading, but then you see that these are the same people freaking out over a panty bulge and it just makes you giggle. Because these people are the ones mouth-breathing over "Hur hur, MJ's wearing a thong," then they start pearl-clutching over Citizen Steel (hehehehehehe, okay, not going there) and his package.