Well Duh,
It’s bad enough to good and noble heros with incredible physiques that I can never measure up to.
Let’s not have them getting some action from beautiful unrealistic women as well.
The problem is that when we’re talking about sexy comics we’re often not talking about “mature” sex scenes like in, say, Watchmen. We’re talking about stuff just as simplistic as any kiddie superhero title, only with more blood and boobies.
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
Women in Japan read comics (and American women read Japanese comics in increasing numbers) because, as you said, they’re made by women for women. Also, there’s a variety of genres availiable. The sexed-up superheroes and fantasy we see in American comics are not attractive to women. I’d argue that they’re in fact repulsive and hostile to many female would-be readers.
Yes, but the sexed-up Superhero stuff *really *sucks.
This brings up another reason I dislike the exagerated sexiness in a lot of comics.
If you’re a fan of some of the sexier characters - PG, for instance - people will assume it’s because she’s ‘sexy’, not because of her character.
I was recently doing research for an LJ entry about Power Girl, and ran into several different people posting things like ‘Now that Supergirl’s back, we don’t need Power Girl. It’s not like anyone liked her except for her tits, anyway.’
While I’m not a huge PG fan, I like her more than Supergirl, if for no other reason than that she’s unconnected to Superman.
Another reason I, personally, dislike it, is a lot of the time, the costumes they use to play up the sexiness are often butt ugly. The two examples that came to mine are Huntress and Starfire.
Huntress’s old costume wasn’t particularly revealing, but it looked good (and, actually, sexy). Then they decided she ought to show more skin and mutilated the costume. Now it looks awful.
And Starfire…ugh. What makes it worse is they gave her a better looking costume for a while.
Yes. I enjoyed some of the Balent-era Catwoman, because she was a cool amoral thief. Not because she looked exactly like she was smuggling watermelons on her chest.
[QUOTE=Menocchio]
[list=1]
[li]As Scott said, comics and cartoons are for kids.[/li][/QUOTE]
Actually, what I said was “it all comes down to the meme that animation, and comic books are for kids only.” A meme is a kind of idea that sticks to people, and stays, as if it were a virus.
What I meant was, while there are comic books for kids, and comic books for adolescents, and comic books for all ages, the prevailing idea is that all comic books are for kids. That is to say, Grandma and Grandpa think they can walk into a comic book shop, and pick up any comic at random, without looking at the cover, and buy it for little Johnny, age five. A very harmful idea. I believe you see it with adults who bring little kids to see Batman Begins, or Aliens v. Predator.
I think this is in the eye of the beholder. However, I agree with the case of mid nineties main market Catwoman.
Now stop right there. I am a casual comic book fan. I do not keep up in the least with cross comic stories lines. Thus, I was very surprised when I heard people claiming that “Batman doesn’t kill.” What happened to the 1930s? Well, it turns out that part of his history has been erased. I complained about this in length, in an earlier thread. Some people told me to check out the Vertigo series. It was kinda nice, but what I really enjoyed was a four-issue miniseries called “Batman: Black & White.”
While you might think of… Say, for example, Batman, as being a “childhood icon”, I thought of him as being a more mature concept. The above concept was published concurrently with the regular batman titles. Unlike them, however, it presented a more mature Batman, brought to life by some really great artists. It was a perfect example of adding more adult themes to the concept. It was quote good for those of us who see comics as being a concept that changes as we grow.
Gah! Forgot my new sigline! :smack:
Did you ever read Ed Brubaker’s Catwoman? I’d argue his run on #1-24 (with art by Darwyn Cooke, Mike Allred, Brad Rader, and Cameron Stewart) is one of the best runs on any DC title of the last ten years.
True.
Me: Oh, good! Smallville’s on.
Friend: Pfffft. You just like it because of the girl (Lana).
M: Nooo. Hot as she is, the show is awesome on its own merits.
F: Yeah right.
Well, y’got yer Maus and yer Sandmen, and y’got your Fem Force and your Cavewoman. Frankly, if I had to pick, I’d go with Fem Force and Cavewoman, but that’s just me. Frankly, the horniest US comics I’ve seen that weren’t defined as “Adult” – and some that are – don’t even come close to the erotic power of adult anime. And in any event, I think if a teen wants porn for sexual gratification, he doesn’t have to look any farther than his nearest Internet-enabled computer. So I don’t see them as stroke mags. The only people I imagine WOULD see them as stroke mags is bluenoses, but they see EVERYTHING outside the Bible as a stroke mag of some kind. (Maybe even the Bible – that King David was a naughty man.)
I see sexy comics as just that – comics whose bailiwick includes sex along with all the usual fantasy adventure. Granted, a lot of them are juvenile in their approach to sex, but I’m not really bothered by that --I don’t see why sexuality in comics should adhere to anybody’s line of what’s mature, fitting and proper. Frex, Cavewoman makes much of Miriam’s very ripe body, but has a sense of fun and lightness to it that keeps it clean and fun – especially the ones drawn by Frank Cho. I’ve no problem with comics visually reflecting the direct and natural interest guys have in women’s bodies – it’s probably one of the most honest things going in comics.
Have to disagree with you on Balent – he appears to be a fine artist who’s trying to integrate a strong sexuality into his Goth-theme Witch of Tarot comic. If you think that’s flat-out porn, you haven’t seen much actual, flat-out porn. Same with Greg Horn. His stuff does not look like it was traced from a porn photoshoot. For example, I did a Google Image search for all the artists you named, saw quite a few Greg Horn images, and though his characters were often looking quite sexy, they were not, say, kneeling with thier heads to the ground and their butts in the air facing the viewer – quite the favorite of porn photoshoots. Other such signature poses from porn photoshoots were also missing, such as the classic beam shot.
The artists you named did have some sexy drawings, though not many showed up on a Google Image search for a couple of them. I was pleased to see that Art Adams has done Cavewoman and Ant, two of my fave images.
Haven’t see them, but I don’t care to have my sexual imagery mixed in with extreme or even mild violence, much less death and gore. That’s why I like Frank Cho so much – seems to share my sensibilties there. I don’t see how such comics are an “embarrassment” to other comics. If you want to be embarrassed, there’s all that Hanna Barbera stuff out there. I’m not even sure that’s an embarrassment to anyone except its creators. The people whose minds are closed about comics are not likely to change unless they find something in comics they really like – the “embarrassing” stuff will only confirm ideas they already had. Frex, I never liked animation or comics until I discovered Japanese adult anime.
Guys like to look at naked or semi-naked women. Doesn’t mean they’re monsters. I also suspect that guys who are creating imaginary superheroine lovers are doing the same thing that young gals who go for distant singers, etc., are doing: creating love objects who are at a safe distance so they can express romantic/sexual feelings without having to act on them because they don’t feel ready for a real-life relationship. I suspect when you put it that way, a lot of women can relate. Granted, when the guy in question is in his 30s, you have to wonder.
Ah, our essential difference I suspect. You’d like to keep sexual imagery ghettoized, I think it has much to contribute to mainstream comics/toons/whathaveyou if done properly. And there’ll have to be a lot of “done improperly” before we learn to do “properly.”
Well, the reason I don’t have much interest in hard core porn is that it’s boring. You need a story to keep things moving along, or at least an interesting character to make you want to see what happens next. Hard core porn typically provides none of this, because it caters to people who have a single reason for looking at it. Not my cuppa.
I have not, but I’ve heard very good things about it. It came out during my college hiatus from comics, and it’s currently on my “buy the TPB when you have some extra cash” list. Sadly, that’s a very long list.
I’ve been thinking about it, and there’s a simple answer and a long answer to this question:
The simple answer is that much of the “bad girl” stuff has been of such poor quality that it’s poisoned the well. Sexiness is not a selling point, since it’s rarely coupled to good art and story (although there’s exceptions, I’m sure).
The more complex answer is that comic and cartoon fans basically want two types of product.
The first is a revival of the “classic” forms. For American media, this means stuff geared towards the younger set (and thus the majority of mainstream superhero comics). There’s violence, but very little brutality (if that makes sense: Die Hard was violent, The Passion of the Christ was brutal) or gore. And all the sex is subtext and innuendo (like Green Arrow and Black Canary on JLU, hot HOT HOT, but will still fly over the kiddies heads). Women can dress in outfits you wouldn’t want to see grandma in, but still stuff you’d let your teenaged daughter wear for Halloween or the gymnastics meet. Sexualizing this stuff is seen as stealing from the children or else slightly perverted and impossible to take seriously, like a pornographic Mickey Mouse cartoon.
The second is works that “transcend” previous uses and imposed limits of the medium. Here’s your Maus, your Watchmen, your Sandman. Most sexy cartoons and comics simply aren’t good enough to qualify. When they are, like in Sin City for instance, they’re welcomed with open arms. When they fall short of this lofty goals, or don’t show us anything new or innovative besides boobs and blood, they’re sneered at primarily for being bad derivative art, and secondly for trying to attract readers with gratuitous sex. IOW, if you’re gonna be sexy, you’ve also gotta be good.
See, that’s the difference between men and women. I would leave the same movie thinking, “Wish I’d gotten to see more of Angelina Jolie’s butt.”
Well, I would have enjoyed her as a cool, amoral thief, and the watermelon-smuggling routine would be just icing on the cake.
Balent’s Catwoman was always silly to me. She wouldn’t be a very effective thief if she was crawling through air vents and tiny holes cut out of glass skylights, looking like she was hiding two midgets the way he drew her. She would have gotten stuck A LOT. Don’t even get me started on gracefully maneuvering around invisible laser beam alarm systems with her monster-rack, scaling skyscrapers, or leaping around Gotham’s skyline. Cooke and Stewart’s versions of Catwoman were sexy, but realistically proportioned so you could believe she was a cat burglar and a gymnast. And the black Emma Peel-style costume Cooke designed was stylish AND functional.
There’s an interesting correalation between a female character’s sexiness/romantic interest and how well she’s written. Smallville, while not a comic, is a good example of this. Chloe was the best friend, so she was allowed to be quirky and weird. She became popular. The writers realized the fans liked the wrong girl, so they turned their romantic lens on Chloe and made her as flat as Lana was previously.
Some writers think that only idealizations are attractive. They don’t understand guys might like chicks in glasses or weirdoes or nerds. Sexy girls are super powerful, super breasted, super demure, super something. A girl’s breasts getting bigger doesn’t always mean her characterization will flatten, especially since in American comics different people are writing and drawing the comic. But romantic interests will almost always be boring and therefore less attractive, regardless of whether you’re talking comics, TV or film.
I’m used to boobs and butts being wagged in my face, I hardly notice it anymore. But useless characters that exist just for romantic interest annoy me, and having a character you liked turn into one is even more aggravating.
I’ve only seen the first two seasons of Buffy so far, but I adore Willow and find Buffy quite boring and bland by comparison, going along those same lines. And I’ve never found Lois Lane the least bit interesting.
I think much of that comes from what limited things happen when characters are designed. Often, it looks to me as if the writers say, “Well, woman (a) is a computer genius, and has family who were involved in a crazy cthulhu cult, but she never knew. Woman (b) is the hero’s romantic interrest.” And that’s often all that’s said about (b). I know there are, of course, exceptions to this, but I’ve seen it a lot myself.
And now that I’ve written that… I want to write a story about woman (a)!
I have to disagree. “Sex sells” is one of the oldest maxims going. I don’t think this justifies the inclusion of sex in a story that doesn’t demand it, only that there’s a reason all the superheroines (and superheroes, to tell the truth) run around in outfits that are pretty much bodysuits, and they all look like bodybuilders.
[quote}The more complex answer is that comic and cartoon fans basically want two types of product.
The first is a revival of the “classic” forms. (Deleted copy by EC just to save space …) Sexualizing this stuff is seen as stealing from the children or else slightly perverted and impossible to take seriously, like a pornographic Mickey Mouse cartoon.
The second is works that “transcend” previous uses and imposed limits of the medium. Here’s your Maus, your Watchmen, your Sandman. Most sexy cartoons and comics simply aren’t good enough to qualify.More copy deleted by EC.)[/QUOTE]
What a classic false dilemma! On the one hand we have comics that are basically for kids and in which sex has no place, on the other we have “adult” comics that sexy imagery just isn’t good enough to qualify for. Seems to me you are leaving out the huge male teen market for comics, as well as the young adult market for comics. What, are they chopped liver? Don’t they have a valid interest in sexy imagery? Does it ALL have to be serious, deep, “mature” sexual imagery? Are Cavewoman, Fem Force, Fathom, etc., all just figments of my imagination?
I would argue that the market for sexy imagery for teens is seriously underfilled, that there may be a lot of, um, pent-up demand for it. I think pubs like Cavewoman are a step in the right direction. Let me give you a link to its online site. . Mind you, it’s an adult site, but the link is to an all-text page that warns that it’s an adult site, so it fulfills SMDB’s warning about two-step links to sites that are not work safe.
As a female who likes comics, it’s kind of silly…sometimes I wonder if their only superpowers are big boobs.
And the guys get treated with more plot & depth. Not a lot, but compared to the females, a lot more.
Not to mention that so many of these sexy females fall into one of these categories:
[ul]
[li] Completely unaware of their sexiness.[/li][li] Aware of it, and scornful of men who are attracted to it.[/li][li] Aware of it, and have no heart/soul and simply use it like a siren.[/li][li] Fall in love with either the villain or the hero, and never gets together with them.[/li][/ul]
Come on. At least some of us want to see Batman & Catwoman make it.
Let me see if I can clarify here. I don’t think you’re going to attract female fans to comics by toning down the sexiness in the comics that presently appeal to male readers. What you need are comics that are made to appeal to female readers. Sailor Moon kinda things, to hook them while they’re young, moving up to comics to appeal to female readers in their teens (romances, action-adventure with female leads, whatever works). That’s they way it works in Japan. Why do you think toning down the sexiness in standard comics is ever going to attract female readers? I bet it would just lose a bunch of male readers.
I’ll have to take your word for it.