![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenETA: 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 05:03 pm (UTC)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.