Back covers and bare breasts
Room101
month, for the Sci-Fi Channel show Saint Sinner, features a woman
who's breasts are clearly visible through her sheer white blouse?
Guess it's a good thing kids hardly read comics anymore, otherwise
Marvel would be swamped with complaints from parents right now.
Alan David Doane
wrote:
Yeah, if those kids find out women have breasts, society as we know it
will crumble! Oh, the humanity, etc.
ADD
Alan David Doane
Editor-in-Chief
Comic Book Galaxy
http://www.comicbookgalaxy.com
Stefan
message news:0trjqus3ale7gnkfk...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 21:02:59 GMT, Room101 <hell...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Has anyone else noticed that the back cover ads on Marvel's books this
> >month, for the Sci-Fi Channel show Saint Sinner, features a woman
> >who's breasts are clearly visible through her sheer white blouse?
> >
> >Guess it's a good thing kids hardly read comics anymore, otherwise
> >Marvel would be swamped with complaints from parents right now.
>
> Yeah, if those kids find out women have breasts, society as we know it
> will crumble! Oh, the humanity, etc.
>
Well it is bad to do this. In a few ears they wont be able to read comics
ecause they'll b blind.
Stefan
SMorelock864
news:%goq9.3834$F53.3...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com:
Must you pollute every newsgroup I read? ;)
--
SMorelock864: Bitter, Fat, and Hateful since 1984
From the Mean Streets of Knoxville, Tennessee
Brian C. Saunders
wrote:
Just think: They'll be a mint back issue shortage with all the
"usage" of the back cover.
Brian
Curt
>"Alan David Doane" <alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown> wrote in
>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 21:02:59 GMT, Room101 <hell...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>> >Has anyone else noticed that the back cover ads on Marvel's books this
>> >month, for the Sci-Fi Channel show Saint Sinner, features a woman
>> >who's breasts are clearly visible through her sheer white blouse?
[snip]
>> Yeah, if those kids find out women have breasts,
"Women have WHAT???"
>>society as we know it will crumble! Oh, the humanity, etc.
>
>Well it is bad to do this. In a few ears they wont be able to read comics
>ecause they'll b blind.
Stefan, how's *your* eyesight? Missing some of those keys
because you're typing too quickly or did you just not see
them? <g>
--
Curt
http://www.curtjames.com/
Stefan
news:3s8kqu8urn07av6h6...@4ax.com...
> Stefan <stef...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> Yeah, if those kids find out women have breasts,
>
> "Women have WHAT???"
>
Issues ;)
> >>society as we know it will crumble! Oh, the humanity, etc.
> >
> >Well it is bad to do this. In a few ears they wont be able to read comics
> >ecause they'll b blind.
>
> Stefan, how's *your* eyesight? Missing some of those keys
> because you're typing too quickly or did you just not see
> them? <g>
>
:)
Me no type so good. I should learn to type weller.
Stefan
Stefan
news:Xns92A6DC54ACAD5St...@130.133.1.4...
> "Stefan" <stef...@sbcglobal.net> mumbled incoherently in
> news:%goq9.3834$F53.3...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
>
It isn't my fault we both have the same hobbies!
Stefan
Eric
> Well it is bad to do this. In a few ears they wont be able to read
> comics ecause they'll b blind.
>
Breasts make you go blind? Aw, crap on a stick!
ERIC
Stoneco864
>>
>>
>
>Must you pollute every newsgroup I read? ;)
>
Just What i was thinking
Ian Boothby
Eric <grimb...@aol.comcheese> wrote in message
news:20021013225049...@mb-cr.aol.com...
> >
> > Well it is bad to do this. In a few ears they wont be able to read
> > comics ecause they'll b blind.
> >
>
> Breasts make you go blind? Aw, crap on a stick!
They do if it's cold and you poke your eyes out on them.
Alan David Doane
wrote:
\
>> Breasts make you go blind? Aw, crap on a stick!
>
>They do if it's cold and you poke your eyes out on them.
>
Much more likely in Stormwatch: Team Achilles, BTW.
starblood
news:nnnjqu49t15m10nuu...@4ax.com...
I *didn't* notice, but thanks for bringing it to my attention!
Timothy Butler
Yup, I was shocked and have lost even more respect for Marvel. I'm
having more and more trouble silencing that little voice in the
back of my head telling me to put away my comics and stop collecting.
I mean, come on, Marvel!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you want to publish Playboy
type content, do it in a Max title. Why put this garbage on PG book?
And yes, this parent will be complaining. I don't appreciate Marvel
sticking this entirely inappropriate advertisement on the back
cover where I didn't notice it until after I had purchased the book.
--
Tim
-----------------
"Much can be learned of dead man by what he has on person. Mr. Smart,
please to search pockets."
"Comb. Handkerchief. Wallet. Keys to my apartment."
"Moment, please, Mr. Smart. Dead man has keys to your apartment?"
"Oh. You mean search HIS pockets."
"Amazing."
Stefan
news:3DAABB9E...@ford.com...
>
> And yes, this parent will be complaining. I don't appreciate Marvel
> sticking this entirely inappropriate advertisement on the back
> cover where I didn't notice it until after I had purchased the book.
>
I am inclined to agree. They should have i on the inside where the have
women earing form fitting outfits over their misproportioned bodies.
Stefan
Pradera
>> Has anyone else noticed that the back cover ads on Marvel's books this
>> month, for the Sci-Fi Channel show Saint Sinner, features a woman
>> who's breasts are clearly visible through her sheer white blouse?
>>
>> Guess it's a good thing kids hardly read comics anymore, otherwise
>> Marvel would be swamped with complaints from parents right now.
>
> Yup, I was shocked and have lost even more respect for Marvel. I'm
> having more and more trouble silencing that little voice in the
> back of my head telling me to put away my comics and stop collecting.
> I mean, come on, Marvel!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you want to publish Playboy
> type content, do it in a Max title. Why put this garbage on PG book?
>
From what little I saw of the series, isn't Saint Sinner aimed rather at
people who are at least aware of existance of female nipples? I mean,
it's not exactly a bedtime story... so what's the noise aboot?
--
Pradera
---
The Holy Document of Vatican Law cannot be changed!
So sayeth the spider.
Joethomann
>>
>> Has anyone else noticed that the back cover ads on Marvel's books this
>> month, for the Sci-Fi Channel show Saint Sinner, features a woman
>> who's breasts are clearly visible through her sheer white blouse?
>>
>> Guess it's a good thing kids hardly read comics anymore, otherwise
>> Marvel would be swamped with complaints from parents right now.
>
>Yup, I was shocked and have lost even more respect for Marvel. I'm
>having more and more trouble silencing that little voice in the
>back of my head telling me to put away my comics and stop collecting.
>I mean, come on, Marvel!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you want to publish Playboy
>type content, do it in a Max title. Why put this garbage on PG book?
>
>And yes, this parent will be complaining. I don't appreciate Marvel
>sticking this entirely inappropriate advertisement on the back
>cover where I didn't notice it until after I had purchased the book.
And you probably wouldn't have noticed it at all if it hadn't been pointed out
to you. So get over it. You think your kids don't know what tits look like yet?
Puh- leaze.
Joethomann
>> sticking this entirely inappropriate advertisement on the back
>> cover where I didn't notice it until after I had purchased the book.
>>
>
>I am inclined to agree. They should have i on the inside where the have
>women earing form fitting outfits over their misproportioned bodies.
Yeah, that hypocrite probably doesn't mind when their kid buys any of a number
of comics that feature 46-22-28 size girls in almost no clothes- but hey,
that's drawn not photographed- big difference, right?
Timothy Butler
I noticed it last Thursday when I finished reading one of the issues. Not
that that has anything to do with anything anyway.
Yes, my kids know about breasts. They also know about modesty, respect
for other people's bodies, and that you shouldn't objectify people.
Samy Merchi
> Yes, my kids know about breasts. They also know about modesty,
> respect for other people's bodies, and that you shouldn't
> objectify people.
Frankly, I've never understood this 'objectify' objection (no pun
intended). Is someone objectified when we can see their nose? I mean,
if someone is objectified when you see a sexually arousing part of
their anatomy, then women should cover up their faces because faces
sexually arouse me. I really don't understand this point.
--
Samy Merchi | sa...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/samy | #152235689
Reader of superhero comic books, writer of superhero fanfiction
"*Astrolabe*...whirls...*twirls*!"
Timothy Butler
My kids don't buy any comics. They read mine after I have screened them for
content. Typically, they read nothing that comes out from Marvel's current
line because of the language and content. Most of the comics I give them
to read are at least 20 years old.
Not that being wrong seems to bother you, but care to take another wild
guess as to my motives and methods? Obviously you care little about my
viewpoint, prefering to insult me about things you have no idea about.
(BTW, if you want hypocrisy, talk to Marvel. They're the ones who violated
their own rating system by putting that ad on a PG rated comic book.)
Timothy Butler
Pradera wrote:
>
> On 14 pa? 2002, Timothy Butler <tbu...@ford.com> scribbled loosely:
>
> >> Has anyone else noticed that the back cover ads on Marvel's books this
> >> month, for the Sci-Fi Channel show Saint Sinner, features a woman
> >> who's breasts are clearly visible through her sheer white blouse?
> >>
> >> Guess it's a good thing kids hardly read comics anymore, otherwise
> >> Marvel would be swamped with complaints from parents right now.
> >
> > Yup, I was shocked and have lost even more respect for Marvel. I'm
> > having more and more trouble silencing that little voice in the
> > back of my head telling me to put away my comics and stop collecting.
> > I mean, come on, Marvel!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you want to publish Playboy
> > type content, do it in a Max title. Why put this garbage on PG book?
> >
>
> From what little I saw of the series, isn't Saint Sinner aimed rather at
> people who are at least aware of existance of female nipples? I mean,
> it's not exactly a bedtime story... so what's the noise aboot?
Obviously, some people might have a problem with a superhero comic
whose audience probably includes Marvel's youngest readers including
photographs of a naked woman. You may not agree with it, but are you
honestly saying that you don't understand it? Man, we just finished
a multi-week thread on the "drain the lizard" comment in the FF #61.
What do you think some people's reaction would be to revealed
breasts in a mainstream PG rated superhero book?
Timothy Butler
Samy Merchi wrote:
>
> Timothy Butler <tbu...@ford.com> wrote on 14 loka 2002:
>
> > Yes, my kids know about breasts. They also know about modesty,
> > respect for other people's bodies, and that you shouldn't
> > objectify people.
>
> Frankly, I've never understood this 'objectify' objection (no pun
> intended). Is someone objectified when we can see their nose? I mean,
> if someone is objectified when you see a sexually arousing part of
> their anatomy, then women should cover up their faces because faces
> sexually arouse me. I really don't understand this point.
When you are taught to treat women as two dimensional objects that
exist as eye candy for your pleasure, that's objectification. As for
your personal fetish, I think it's bizare enough that society shouldn't
cater to it. If you are sexually aroused by female faces, I would say
that your problems go a little deeper than a tendency to objectify
women.
W. Blaine Dowler
> From what little I saw of the series, isn't Saint Sinner aimed rather at
> people who are at least aware of existance of female nipples? I mean,
> it's not exactly a bedtime story... so what's the noise aboot?
It's not the ad itself, but rather which comics the ad is being attached
to. The ad would probably be rated R if it had a rating, and yet it's on
PG books. Most people agree that they wouldn't have taken exception to it
had it only appeared on Max titles.
We really have one of two possibilities:
1) Marvel doesn't care about the mismatch in content, which has offended
people. This seems to be what most people are assuming.
2) Marvel didn't screen the ads carefully enough to notice the problem.
(NOTE: I haven't seen the ad itself, as I usually buy TPBs, but I checked
out the "Saint Sinner" website after seeing this thread to see if I can
find it. Most of the ads have the woman in the background, so it might
have been missed if the ad screener was too lax.) This is an entirely
different problem, but it's still a problem.
--
- Blaine
http://www.bureau42.com
XFW # 299792458, WM, SW, WNS, NRMTPB, FPSSG
SVS# 0.00729735308002..., CoC #36, SSUCS
Samy Merchi
> When you are taught to treat women as two dimensional objects
> that exist as eye candy for your pleasure, that's
> objectification.
But that has nothing to do with seeing nipples! I've seen Kirsten
Dunst's nipples, that didn't somehow magically make me think, "Gee,
Kirsten suddenly doesn't feel like a real person anymore, she's now
just a two-dimensional object that exists solely for my pleasure!!"
Seeing someone's nipples does not objectification make.
> As for your personal fetish, I think it's bizare
> enough that society shouldn't cater to it.
Fortunately, society disagrees with you. :)
> If you are sexually
> aroused by female faces, I would say that your problems go a
> little deeper than a tendency to objectify women.
I find looking at a beautiful face far more pleasing than looking at
a vagina, or nipples for that matter. I don't think that
consistitutes a 'problem', and it certainly hasn't been one for me.
If it is, it's solely in your head.
W. Blaine Dowler
> If you are sexually aroused by female faces, I would say
> that your problems go a little deeper than a tendency to objectify
> women.
What, you don't find yourself attracted to a member of the gender(s) you're
attracted to with a very nice face? That much is normal, I think.
I do agree with your comment about objectification, though. Most things in
print like this show us a beautiful body with no indications of the
personality or mind of the woman it belongs to. A woman's personality and
mind should be *at* *least* as important as her appearance when it comes
to how attractive she is, in my not-so-humble opinion.
Timothy Butler
Samy Merchi wrote:
>
> Timothy Butler <tbu...@ford.com> wrote on 14 loka 2002:
>
> > When you are taught to treat women as two dimensional objects
> > that exist as eye candy for your pleasure, that's
> > objectification.
>
> But that has nothing to do with seeing nipples! I've seen Kirsten
> Dunst's nipples, that didn't somehow magically make me think, "Gee,
> Kirsten suddenly doesn't feel like a real person anymore, she's now
> just a two-dimensional object that exists solely for my pleasure!!"
> Seeing someone's nipples does not objectification make.
I'm sure that when you were staring at Kirsten Dunst's nipples, you
were deeply interested in her personality, her feelings and vitally
concerned about her as a fellow human being.
>
> > As for your personal fetish, I think it's bizare
> > enough that society shouldn't cater to it.
>
> Fortunately, society disagrees with you. :)
If there's a movement afoot in society to make the female face an
object of sexual arrousal and lust like breasts, I must be missing
it. Most men will respond to a pretty face, but not to the degree
of arrousal.
>
> > If you are sexually
> > aroused by female faces, I would say that your problems go a
> > little deeper than a tendency to objectify women.
>
> I find looking at a beautiful face far more pleasing than looking at
> a vagina, or nipples for that matter. I don't think that
> consistitutes a 'problem', and it certainly hasn't been one for me.
> If it is, it's solely in your head.
I think you're playing semantic games now. And that problem isn't in
my head. It's in yours. We weren't talking about being pleased. We
were talking sexual arrousal, and you're the one who made the equation
of faces to breasts. If you've got a face fetish, I think that you may
need help. I don't think society should change to accommodate your
hang up.
Timothy Butler
"W. Blaine Dowler" wrote:
>
> Pradera wrote:
>
> > From what little I saw of the series, isn't Saint Sinner aimed rather at
> > people who are at least aware of existance of female nipples? I mean,
> > it's not exactly a bedtime story... so what's the noise aboot?
>
> It's not the ad itself, but rather which comics the ad is being attached
> to. The ad would probably be rated R if it had a rating, and yet it's on
> PG books. Most people agree that they wouldn't have taken exception to it
> had it only appeared on Max titles.
>
> We really have one of two possibilities:
>
> 1) Marvel doesn't care about the mismatch in content, which has offended
> people. This seems to be what most people are assuming.
>
> 2) Marvel didn't screen the ads carefully enough to notice the problem.
> (NOTE: I haven't seen the ad itself, as I usually buy TPBs, but I checked
> out the "Saint Sinner" website after seeing this thread to see if I can
> find it. Most of the ads have the woman in the background, so it might
> have been missed if the ad screener was too lax.) This is an entirely
> different problem, but it's still a problem.
Very, very well said. Thank you. If it was #2, I wouldn't have a huge
problem with it as long as Marvel knows that they screwed up and make
a commitment to doing a better job in the future. However, if it's your
option #1, Marvel's seen the last of my money.
If my response seems strong, it's because I feel that this was a huge
blunder on Marvel's part. And I am hoping that some kind of statement
to that effect will be forthcoming from someone connected with Marvel's
advertising department. At this point, I'm not assuming this was a
deliberate "in your face" from Marvel.
Timothy Butler
"W. Blaine Dowler" wrote:
>
> Timothy Butler wrote:
>
> > If you are sexually aroused by female faces, I would say
> > that your problems go a little deeper than a tendency to objectify
> > women.
>
> What, you don't find yourself attracted to a member of the gender(s) you're
> attracted to with a very nice face? That much is normal, I think.
Seeing a pretty face in and of itself typically isn't enough to cause sexual
arrousal in a man. Attraction, yes. Desire, yes. But arrousal? Not the kind
that you get from seeing an unclothed body. If that were the case, most men
would get their jollies looking at a book of portraits instead of Playboy.
>
> I do agree with your comment about objectification, though. Most things in
> print like this show us a beautiful body with no indications of the
> personality or mind of the woman it belongs to. A woman's personality and
> mind should be *at* *least* as important as her appearance when it comes
> to how attractive she is, in my not-so-humble opinion.
Agree completely.
Pradera
>>
>> From what little I saw of the series, isn't Saint Sinner aimed rather
at
>> people who are at least aware of existance of female nipples? I mean,
>> it's not exactly a bedtime story... so what's the noise aboot?
>
> Obviously, some people might have a problem with a superhero comic
> whose audience probably includes Marvel's youngest readers including
> photographs of a naked woman. You may not agree with it, but are you
> honestly saying that you don't understand it? Man, we just finished
> a multi-week thread on the "drain the lizard" comment in the FF #61.
> What do you think some people's reaction would be to revealed
> breasts in a mainstream PG rated superhero book?
>
I think they should read some kids manga (like Ranma) - they'd get a
heart attack :)
Okay, so I wasn't aware it was on a PG book. I thought it was ON Saint
Sinner's cover (although I don't really know if it's PG or not, it
doesn't look like one to me). Misunderstanding.
Richard Flavin
>From: Timothy Butler tbu...@ford.com
>Date: 10/14/2002 3:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3DAB21B6...@ford.com>
>
--snip--
>Very, very well said. Thank you. If it was #2, I wouldn't have a huge
>problem with it as long as Marvel knows that they screwed up and make
>a commitment to doing a better job in the future. However, if it's your
>option #1, Marvel's seen the last of my money.
>
>If my response seems strong, it's because I feel that this was a huge
>blunder on Marvel's part. And I am hoping that some kind of statement
>to that effect will be forthcoming from someone connected with Marvel's
>advertising department. At this point, I'm not assuming this was a
>deliberate "in your face" from Marvel.
>
I noticed the bare breasts on the back of a copy of the latest Cap and, for a
second, considered that Marvel Knights could be a PG-13 or soft R rated line.
But, as the ad was for something on The Sci-Fi Channel, and Sci-Fi often edits
out most such scenes which feature bare breasts, I got to thinking it was maybe
a last-minute color separation thing. A proofer or printer clicked the woman's
white blouse and changed it to flesh tone. Sci-Fi has never pushed bare
breasts, and that goes for Marvel as well, at least before the recent Max line,
and the old Savage and Epic stuff. I vote for rogue ad with a color proofing
error.
RDF
--
Flavin's Corner:
http://www.flavinscorner.com
Joethomann
>>
>> >> And yes, this parent will be complaining. I don't appreciate Marvel
>> >> sticking this entirely inappropriate advertisement on the back
>> >> cover where I didn't notice it until after I had purchased the book.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I am inclined to agree. They should have i on the inside where the have
>> >women earing form fitting outfits over their misproportioned bodies.
>>
>> Yeah, that hypocrite probably doesn't mind when their kid buys any of a
>number
>> of comics that feature 46-22-28 size girls in almost no clothes- but hey,
>> that's drawn not photographed- big difference, right?
>
>My kids don't buy any comics. They read mine after I have screened them for
>content. Typically, they read nothing that comes out from Marvel's current
>line because of the language and content. Most of the comics I give them
>to read are at least 20 years old.
I'm sure your kids being restricted to 20 year old fluff, from the "shoot",
"durn" and "blazes" era of pap Marvel used to publish. Not that adult language
makes a book better, but come on- most of what passed for comics back then was
45 year old versions of what teens to young adults said and did. And if you
can't even let your kids read Marvel of late, what the hel (oops, sorry) do
they read from today's comics? Sugar and Spike? Archie?
>Not that being wrong seems to bother you, but care to take another wild
>guess as to my motives and methods? Obviously you care little about my
>viewpoint, prefering to insult me about things you have no idea about.
I don't see where I was wrong, but it's your nickel.
>(BTW, if you want hypocrisy, talk to Marvel. They're the ones who violated
>their own rating system by putting that ad on a PG rated comic book.)
Technically they violated nothing (except your own puritanical viewpoint)
because the rating is for the "content" of the book that their own creators
contribute, not the ads, inside or out of the book.
Joethomann
>>
>> >Room101 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Has anyone else noticed that the back cover ads on Marvel's books this
>> >> month, for the Sci-Fi Channel show Saint Sinner, features a woman
>> >> who's breasts are clearly visible through her sheer white blouse?
>> >>
>> >> Guess it's a good thing kids hardly read comics anymore, otherwise
>> >> Marvel would be swamped with complaints from parents right now.
>> >
>> >Yup, I was shocked and have lost even more respect for Marvel. I'm
>> >having more and more trouble silencing that little voice in the
>> >back of my head telling me to put away my comics and stop collecting.
>> >I mean, come on, Marvel!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you want to publish Playboy
>> >type content, do it in a Max title. Why put this garbage on PG book?
>> >
>> >And yes, this parent will be complaining. I don't appreciate Marvel
>> >sticking this entirely inappropriate advertisement on the back
>> >cover where I didn't notice it until after I had purchased the book.
>>
>> And you probably wouldn't have noticed it at all if it hadn't been pointed
>out
>> to you. So get over it. You think your kids don't know what tits look like
>yet?
>> Puh- leaze.
>
>I noticed it last Thursday when I finished reading one of the issues. Not
>that that has anything to do with anything anyway.
>
>Yes, my kids know about breasts. They also know about modesty, respect
>for other people's bodies, and that you shouldn't objectify people.
Hate to tell ya this, Timmy, but comics have been "objectifying" women's bodies
for decades.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Has anyone else noticed that the back cover ads on Marvel's books this
>month, for the Sci-Fi Channel show Saint Sinner, features a woman
>who's breasts are clearly visible through her sheer white blouse?
Not like every Marvel heroine doesn't have massive breasts with giant
nipples pointing our or anything.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>And yes, this parent will be complaining. I don't appreciate Marvel
>sticking this entirely inappropriate advertisement on the back
>cover where I didn't notice it until after I had purchased the book.
Then don't buy any more Marvel books, maybe we won't have to listen to
you whine anymore.
Stefan
>
> (BTW, if you want hypocrisy, talk to Marvel. They're the ones who violated
> their own rating system by putting that ad on a PG rated comic book.)
>
The PG content is for the story. Not the ads.
Why couldn't you just tape a piece of paper to the back of your own comic
then? If it is so objectable then what would be the harm?
Stefan
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Yes, my kids know about breasts. They also know about modesty, respect
>for other people's bodies, and that you shouldn't objectify people.
Sheesh, I hope they don't read or go out in public. Just about every
magazine and every billboard on the road objectifies people.
Pradera
>> > As for your personal fetish, I think it's bizare
>> > enough that society shouldn't cater to it.
>>
>> Fortunately, society disagrees with you. :)
>
> If there's a movement afoot in society to make the female face an
> object of sexual arrousal and lust like breasts, I must be missing
> it. Most men will respond to a pretty face, but not to the degree
> of arrousal.
>
(please read it all before responding...)
<rant>
Was there a "movement" to make female breasts arousable? They are this
way, whatever some people may think or not, otherwise we wouldn't be able
to breed. Nothing social about it.
Gee, this looks like an interesting thread, and I wish I could take part
in it, but frankly, it would seem like trolling. I mean, it started with
kids in danger of seeing female nipples, which was kinda bigot, but at
least fair - and now it magicaly turned into objectification debate. Not
having seen the picture, I can't tell if it was indeed meant to objectify
a 'woman behind nipples' or not. Are you suggesting that every
visualisation of naked female flesh somehow deprives owner of this flesh
of his personality? Geez, you have a sick mind.
And let's face it - you're not really objecting 'objectification'. You're
objecting showing naked body in the picture. There are many other ways to
objectify a human being, almost every appearance in some sort of
commercial objectifies the person involved - it uses his/hers
mind/body/face/knowledge instead of personality. So why don't you rant
about commercials per se?
Besides, what's the problem with getting some sexual arousal? We're all
humans. It's hard to provide arousal without showing some naked or
partially clothed body. The only thing I could object here is lack of
equally naked male. But I can already imagine how would you react to
THAT.
</rant>
All this, of course, has nothing to do with the ad being printed on the
back of PG-rated comic. I was only responding to your 'objectification'
theory.
okay, I guess I should finish this here. I'm a gnubie here, so I should
probably behave.
Eoghann Irving
You wrote:
> Seeing a pretty face in and of itself typically isn't enough to
cause sexual
> arrousal in a man. Attraction, yes. Desire, yes. But arrousal?
Not the kind
> that you get from seeing an unclothed body.
Actually thats not true. One can reasonably assume that its the
exception when it happens, but it can happen. Since sexual
arrousal is primarily connected to the imagination, its entirely
possible to become fully aroused by seeing a face if that face
happens to suggest to your mind something which arouses you.
This is why nudity is not in and of itself an arousing thing. If
it was (to use your own arguments) men on nudist beaches would
wander round with a permanent erection. They don't.
The distinction between plain nudity and titilating nudity is
widely made in society.
Which makes me wonder since I haven't seen the advert in
question. Which is this? Is it the equivalent of the pictures of
catwalk models which respectable newspapers sometimes print? They
are deemed accetable because the action of walking down a catwalk
is not particularly provocative.
Or is the woman in a clearly provocative pose?
Eoghann Irving
--
Solar Flare - Everything Fantasy & Science Fiction
News, Reviews and Commentary
http://www.sflare.com
Win a $25 Amazon.com Gift Certificate
W. Blaine Dowler
> I noticed the bare breasts on the back of a copy of the latest Cap and,
> for a second, considered that Marvel Knights could be a PG-13 or soft R
> rated line. But, as the ad was for something on The Sci-Fi Channel, and
> Sci-Fi often edits out most such scenes which feature bare breasts, I got
> to thinking it was maybe
> a last-minute color separation thing. A proofer or printer clicked the
> woman's
> white blouse and changed it to flesh tone. Sci-Fi has never pushed bare
> breasts, and that goes for Marvel as well, at least before the recent Max
> line,
> and the old Savage and Epic stuff. I vote for rogue ad with a color
> proofing error.
Take a look at the graphics on the official website for the show. There
are nipples and aureolas visible through sheer clothing in those shots. I
haven't seen the comic ads, but I assume it's the same thing. I'd say the
sci-fi channel knows that's there, but I'm not convinced the people at
Marvel spotted it.
Pradera
scribbled loosely:
>
> Take a look at the graphics on the official website for the show.
> There are nipples and aureolas visible through sheer clothing in those
> shots. I haven't seen the comic ads, but I assume it's the same
> thing. I'd say the sci-fi channel knows that's there, but I'm not
> convinced the people at Marvel spotted it.
>
I just went to see it. Are you talking about those two women stretched in
the back, wearing some kind of vampire-night-gowns?
Sweet Jesus on a stick! Is that supposed to be sexually arousing to
anybody? Is that the whole 'objectification' you're talking about?
It is my personal opinion that anyone who actually objects to showing
that kind of thing, is in fact a sick pervert, secretly looking for
anything to arouse himself.
What would do you all good would be a month living in Finland or some
place like that. They have these saunas there, and you're supposed to get
inside NAKED with all your neighbours. Shocking, isn't it? Or Japan, with
their hot springs. Naked flesh, everywhere!
What I wonder about everytime I see people like you guys, is why ever do
you read comic books, when they are so full of violence. Isn't violence
an evil also? Is it more acceptable to see somebody being ripped apart by
adamantium claws than see his nipples showing through a night gown?
(drats, this is NOT a good way to start posting on a ng, is it...)
Pradera
> What I wonder about everytime I see people like you guys, is why ever
> do you read comic books, when they are so full of violence. Isn't
> violence an evil also? Is it more acceptable to see somebody being
> ripped apart by adamantium claws than see his nipples showing through
> a night gown?
>
PS: A guy in the front is shown holding a bare knife, obviously wanting to
strike somebody with it. Does it not disturb you?
Richard Flavin
>Date: 10/14/2002 5:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <LTGq9.508356$v53.21...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>
--snip--
>Take a look at the graphics on the official website for the show. There
>are nipples and aureolas visible through sheer clothing in those shots. I
>haven't seen the comic ads, but I assume it's the same thing. I'd say the
>sci-fi channel knows that's there, but I'm not convinced the people at
>Marvel spotted it.
>
>--
>- Blaine
Ah, you haven't seen the ad? It's different from anything online.
Richard Flavin
>Date: 10/14/2002 6:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20021014180550...@mb-ms.aol.com>
ad as run by Marvel, Clive Barker's site does at
http://www.clivebarker.com/html/visions/new/new.html
It still looks like a color proofer changed a white, diaphanous blouse to flesh
tone. I don't believe Sci-Fi would run this ad in TV Guide. I'm still going
for rogue ad. And Marvel being lazy, of course.
W. Blaine Dowler
> I just went to see it. Are you talking about those two women stretched in
> the back, wearing some kind of vampire-night-gowns?
> Sweet Jesus on a stick! Is that supposed to be sexually arousing to
> anybody? Is that the whole 'objectification' you're talking about?
I don't find the images particularly arousing, but those are the images
with the visible nipples that started this whole discussion.
As for the objectification, this is a very mild example that qualifies only
because we know nothing of what those women are like in real life, or what
the personalities of those characters are, IMO.
W. Blaine Dowler
>>Ah, you haven't seen the ad? It's different from anything online.
No, I haven't. That's why I've been trying to refer to the sci-fi
channel's website when I talk about the content of the ad itself.
> The above is incorrect. While The Sci-Fi Channel's website doesn't
> feature the ad as run by Marvel, Clive Barker's site does at
> http://www.clivebarker.com/html/visions/new/new.html
>
> It still looks like a color proofer changed a white, diaphanous blouse to
> flesh tone.
Seeing that ad, I agree. The sci-fi channel has the woman in the same
image, but the dress is much more white (although still transparent.)
~consul
>>month, for the Sci-Fi Channel show Saint Sinner, features a woman
>>who's breasts are clearly visible through her sheer white blouse?
> Not like every Marvel heroine doesn't have massive breasts with giant
> nipples pointing our or anything.
You're right, they don't. They have huge breasts, but no nipples. (Except for
Batman. ;) )
--
till next time,
Jameson Stalanthas Yu http://www.dolphins-cove.com
xdedes...@dolphins-cove.com (remove x's to reply)
~consul
> I just went to see it. Are you talking about those two women stretched in
> the back, wearing some kind of vampire-night-gowns?
> Sweet Jesus on a stick! Is that supposed to be sexually arousing to
> anybody? Is that the whole 'objectification' you're talking about?
Well, they do seem to be the 'minion slaves' of that guy in the foreground.
That's pretty objectified. :)
> It is my personal opinion that anyone who actually objects to showing
> that kind of thing, is in fact a sick pervert, secretly looking for
> anything to arouse himself.
Or is it that you would think that is what he is thinking make you the sick
one?!? You're not, AFAIK, but you really can't play mind-reader here.
> What would do you all good would be a month living in Finland or some
> place like that. They have these saunas there, and you're supposed to get
> inside NAKED with all your neighbours. Shocking, isn't it? Or Japan, with
> their hot springs. Naked flesh, everywhere!
And the huge majority of readers are the US male audience. Which in the culture,
they don't do that, and have a decidedly different view on sexuality and nudity
from the rest of the world. I personally think it is a bit too prudish in what
is "accepted by/for consenting adults" venue, but that's not the topic.
> What I wonder about everytime I see people like you guys, is why ever do
> you read comic books, when they are so full of violence. Isn't violence
> an evil also? Is it more acceptable to see somebody being ripped apart by
> adamantium claws than see his nipples showing through a night gown?
US differences, violence and mayhem is okay, sexual pervasiveness is not.
> (drats, this is NOT a good way to start posting on a ng, is it...)
Welcome to racmx/u
BoSPMwa! Assemble!
Stefan
news:Xns92A7F3DE2ABB6p...@130.133.1.4...
> On 14 paz 2002, Pradera <pra...@pradera.prv.pl> scribbled loosely:
>
> > What I wonder about everytime I see people like you guys, is why ever
> > do you read comic books, when they are so full of violence. Isn't
> > violence an evil also? Is it more acceptable to see somebody being
> > ripped apart by adamantium claws than see his nipples showing through
> > a night gown?
> >
>
> PS: A guy in the front is shown holding a bare knife, obviously wanting to
> strike somebody with it. Does it not disturb you?
The knife is a pahllic symbol. You do the math
Stefan: just throwing gasoline on the fire for the hell of it
jc
>
>While The Sci-Fi Channel's website doesn't feature the ad as run by Marvel, Clive Barker's site does at
>http://www.clivebarker.com/html/visions/new/new.html
>
>
left shoulder, then, yes, those clearly are breasts. with nipples, too.
on its own, i don't see a problem with the ad. the problem, it seems,
is that said ad was printed (back, inside, front, doesn't matter) on a
book meant to be read by a general audience. is this going to
traumatize anybody?? not likely. is it going to get someone
"aroused??" i suppose someone might find it arousing.
ciao!!
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
W. Blaine Dowler <fiz...@bureau42.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>I don't find the images particularly arousing, but those are the images
>with the visible nipples that started this whole discussion.
Looking at the image on the web, the nipplage seems a bit more obvious.
I really had to look at the back cover of _Captain America_ to kind of
make out something that's probably a nipple. The ad's tacky, to be sure,
but probably not worse than PG.
JRjr
--
%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%% www.prism.gatech.edu/~jr70 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Some will shake off the sloth of faithlessness
While others simply languish in their sleep
Me, I just fight to stay awake..." -- VOL, "Black Cloud O'er Me"
Jeremy Henderson
Well, just to clarify my own position on this particular matter...do I
personally care that there's a bare-breasted woman on the back cover
of X-Statix? No, not at all. I've seen breasts before, so to me it's
really not an issue.
But for Marvel, it could be a very big issue. Though it probably seems
silly to a lot of us, for some people, especially for parents, the
difference between a drawing of a large breasted woman in skintight
clothing and a photo of a woman with her breasts bare are two very
different things, and I could see some people raising quite a big fuss
over this. Marvel's doing prety well right now, but they're still in a
tenuous enough financial position that they don't need the kind ofbad
press this could bring. My pointing out the ad wasn't necessarily a
criticism of Marvel's decision to run it, I was simply bringing up
what I thought was a poor decision on the part of Marvel.
COLIERRANND2
>sticking this entirely inappropriate advertisement on the back
>cover where I didn't notice it until after I had purchased the book.
>
Yes oh yes! Please protect everyone Mr. Parent! Its up to you! Yea...And join
the PMRC and The Parents Television Council so all can media can be like Little
House and the Falwell show....
I'm gonna puke now...
Censorship SUCKS!
Col
Read Captain Marvel and Power Company. You won't regret it in the least.
COLIERRANND2
>for other people's bodies, and that you shouldn't objectify people.
>
>
>Tim
I doubt it. That's why their more likely to be serial killers.
But answer the violence question for me at least Tim. Tell me if seeing someone
hacked to death or hit and punched is better for kids to watch? Do they watch
Dragonball Z??
I once had a woman drop her kid off to see the movie "Firestorm" at the movie
theater I worked at. She asked it there was any"you know..s-e-x?" and I said
"no, but a guy gets an axe thru the head." and she says "thats fine, its easier
to explain violence than sex"...of course now we have school shootings...
So tell me. Which do you want your kids to see Tim? Which would you prefer?
CENSORSHIP SUCKS!
COLIERRANND2
>were deeply interested in her personality, her feelings and vitally
>concerned about her as a fellow human being.
>
I just love it when people who think they know whats best for the rest of us
try to make themselves something else(in this case "feminists" in Bin Laden's
case, he suddenly felt for Palestinians) to justify their push of their own
"morals" on others. I wonder if Tim is somehow related to Ashcroft....
>I think you're playing semantic games now. And that problem isn't in
>my head. It's in yours. We weren't talking about being pleased. We
>were talking sexual arrousal, and you're the one who made the equation
>of faces to breasts. If you've got a face fetish, I think that you may
>need help. I don't think society should change to accommodate your
>hang up.
>
>--
>
>Tim
Gotta disagree, its in YOUR head. Noone else wants to complain to Marvel about
a stupid set of nipples.
COLIERRANND2
>print like this show us a beautiful body with no indications of the
>personality or mind of the woman it belongs to.
Would you care to show just how this ad was supposed to achive the goal of
giving us this woman's personality? It looks very similar to the ads for
"Firefly"(sans nipples) and I don't recall people being upset that Jewel Staite
or any of the other women were "objectified" in those ads...
This isnt about that though. As already pointed out, its about one man, once
again, trying to put his will on others.
COLIERRANND2
>silly to a lot of us, for some people, especially for parents, the
>difference between a drawing of a large breasted woman in skintight
>clothing and a photo of a woman with her breasts bare are two very
>different things
One of the big reasons that I try to prevent parents from holding public
office!
Mike
prick.
"Timothy Butler" <tbu...@ford.com> wrote in message
news:3DAB2498...@ford.com...
>
>
> Samy Merchi wrote:
> >
> > Timothy Butler <tbu...@ford.com> wrote on 14 loka 2002:
> >
> > > When you are taught to treat women as two dimensional objects
> > > that exist as eye candy for your pleasure, that's
> > > objectification.
> >
> > But that has nothing to do with seeing nipples! I've seen Kirsten
> > Dunst's nipples, that didn't somehow magically make me think, "Gee,
> > Kirsten suddenly doesn't feel like a real person anymore, she's now
> > just a two-dimensional object that exists solely for my pleasure!!"
> > Seeing someone's nipples does not objectification make.
>
> I'm sure that when you were staring at Kirsten Dunst's nipples, you
> were deeply interested in her personality, her feelings and vitally
> concerned about her as a fellow human being.
>
> >
> > > As for your personal fetish, I think it's bizare
> > > enough that society shouldn't cater to it.
> >
> > Fortunately, society disagrees with you. :)
>
> If there's a movement afoot in society to make the female face an
> object of sexual arrousal and lust like breasts, I must be missing
> it. Most men will respond to a pretty face, but not to the degree
> of arrousal.
>
> >
> > > If you are sexually
> > > aroused by female faces, I would say that your problems go a
> > > little deeper than a tendency to objectify women.
> >
> > I find looking at a beautiful face far more pleasing than looking at
> > a vagina, or nipples for that matter. I don't think that
> > consistitutes a 'problem', and it certainly hasn't been one for me.
> > If it is, it's solely in your head.
>
> I think you're playing semantic games now. And that problem isn't in
> my head. It's in yours. We weren't talking about being pleased. We
> were talking sexual arrousal, and you're the one who made the equation
> of faces to breasts. If you've got a face fetish, I think that you may
> need help. I don't think society should change to accommodate your
> hang up.
>
> --
>
> Tim
> -----------------
> "Much can be learned of dead man by what he has on person. Mr. Smart,
> please to search pockets."
> "Comb. Handkerchief. Wallet. Keys to my apartment."
> "Moment, please, Mr. Smart. Dead man has keys to your apartment?"
> "Oh. You mean search HIS pockets."
> "Amazing."
Samy Merchi
> I'm sure that when you were staring at Kirsten Dunst's nipples,
> you were deeply interested in her personality, her feelings and
> vitally concerned about her as a fellow human being.
I was as interested in her personality when staring at her nipples
as I am when staring at any other part of her body. Just because I
can enjoy looking at someone's nipple, or hip curve, or butt, or
lips, or eyes, doesn't automatically somehow diminish my interest in
her personality.
Granted, I'm not very interested in Kirsten Dunst's personality as a
whole, but that has nothing to do with the fact that she's showing
nipplage, and everything to do with the fact that she's on the other
side of the planet and HIGHLY unlikely to ever meet me. Maybe we
should ban people being on the other side of the planet from me,
because that objectifies people!!
> I think you're playing semantic games now. And that problem isn't
> in my head. It's in yours. We weren't talking about being
> pleased. We were talking sexual arrousal, and you're the one who
> made the equation of faces to breasts.
We were talking about whether something objectifies women, and I'm
pointing out that faces and breasts produce no different reaction in
me, vis-a-vis objectification. Whether the reaction is arousal, or
pleasure, or disgust is irrelevant. The point I'm making is that a
bare nipple or vagina is inherently no more objectifying, pleasing
or arousing than a bare face. If it was, biology textbooks should be
banned too.
> If you've got a face
> fetish, I think that you may need help. I don't think society
> should change to accommodate your hang up.
It doesn't need to change. It's already quite satisfactorily
accommodating me by not having women cover their faces. In the
Western world, anyway.
--
Samy Merchi | sa...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/samy | #152235689
Reader of superhero comic books, writer of superhero fanfiction
"*Astrolabe*...whirls...*twirls*!"
BlakGard
>> month, for the Sci-Fi Channel show Saint Sinner, features a woman
>> who's breasts are clearly visible through her sheer white blouse?
>>
>> Marvel would be swamped with complaints from parents right now.
>
>I *didn't* notice, but thanks for bringing it to my attention!
Bah... still no comparison to the Spider-Man movie.
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>You just lost any hope of being taken seriously by acting like a Grade A
>prick.
I've come to the conclusion that he's either a troll or a puritanical
fundie, and in either case, not worth talking to. Anyone who reacts
so anally and is offended by literally everything, deserves to be.
michael wheeler
in my comics. I mean, there's no code any more, most of them are PG, and
I'm paying $2-3 a book for no nipple? What gives? Even in the MAX and MK
line, they shy away from the nipple. There's something worth complaining
about.
"COLIERRANND2" <colier...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021014215459...@mb-ms.aol.com...
BlakGard
>>do you read comic books, when they are so full of violence. Isn't
>>violence an evil also? Is it more acceptable to see somebody being
>>ripped apart by adamantium claws than see his nipples showing through
>>a night gown?
>
>PS: A guy in the front is shown holding a bare knife, obviously wanting to
>strike somebody with it. Does it not disturb you?
Why should it? I mean, appart from Saint Sinner being a horror movie, which
is supposed to disturb you on at least some level.
What distrubs me more are Puritanical views.
BlakGard
>> > respect for other people's bodies, and that you shouldn't
>> > objectify people.
>>
>> intended). Is someone objectified when we can see their nose? I mean,
>> if someone is objectified when you see a sexually arousing part of
>> their anatomy, then women should cover up their faces because faces
>> sexually arouse me. I really don't understand this point.
>
>When you are taught to treat women as two dimensional objects that
>your personal fetish, I think it's bizare enough that society shouldn't
>that your problems go a little deeper than a tendency to objectify
>women.
<sarcasm>
Yes. Because you know we can't have any sexual arousal going on
anywhere. I mean... you might rape someone just by looking at their
face.
</sarcasm>
Get over it...
BlakGard
>> > that exist as eye candy for your pleasure, that's
>> > objectification.
>>
>> Dunst's nipples, that didn't somehow magically make me think, "Gee,
>> Kirsten suddenly doesn't feel like a real person anymore, she's now
>> just a two-dimensional object that exists solely for my pleasure!!"
>> Seeing someone's nipples does not objectification make.
>
>were deeply interested in her personality, her feelings and vitally
>concerned about her as a fellow human being.
This sentence probably reveals a lot more about you than anyone else.
BlakGard
>> > that your problems go a little deeper than a tendency to objectify
>> > women.
>>
>> attracted to with a very nice face? That much is normal, I think.
>
>Seeing a pretty face in and of itself typically isn't enough to cause sexual
>arrousal in a man. Attraction, yes. Desire, yes. But arrousal?
attraction == arrousal
And no, most men would probably disagree with about the face.
Shy Guy
"Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:Xns92A7E78A6...@130.232.1.14...
> I've seen Kirsten
> Dunst's nipples,
Where did you see them? I'd like to see them also. Merely for purposes of
arousal and objectification, I assure you.
No. Really.
TIA
Shy Guy
Pradera
>>>What I wonder about everytime I see people like you guys, is why ever
>>>do you read comic books, when they are so full of violence. Isn't
>>>violence an evil also? Is it more acceptable to see somebody being
>>>ripped apart by adamantium claws than see his nipples showing through
>>>a night gown?
>>
>>PS: A guy in the front is shown holding a bare knife, obviously
>>wanting to strike somebody with it. Does it not disturb you?
>
> Why should it? I mean, appart from Saint Sinner being a horror movie,
> which is supposed to disturb you on at least some level.
>
> What distrubs me more are Puritanical views.
I wasn't talking to you :) I was asking people who are so disturbed by
sight of female nipples...
--
Pradera
---
The Holy Document of Vatican Law cannot be changed!
So sayeth the spider.
Landru99
other people's bodies, and that you shouldn't objectify people.>>
I can just see this guy in the theater with his kids watching 'Spider-Man."
During the scene where they show Dunst's nipples, he'd be covering their eyes
and shrieking "Don't look, kids! For God's sake - DON'T LOOK!"
Landru
W. Blaine Dowler
> Looking at the image on the web, the nipplage seems a bit more obvious.
> I really had to look at the back cover of _Captain America_ to kind of
> make out something that's probably a nipple. The ad's tacky, to be sure,
> but probably not worse than PG.
Most of the people who are arguing the point seem to be used to the MPAA
rating system as a reference. In that system, exposed nipples (on a
female) automatically merit a minimum of PG-13. That's the frame of mind
they're using when talking about this.
W. Blaine Dowler
> Would you care to show just how this ad was supposed to achive the goal
> of giving us this woman's personality? It looks very similar to the ads
> for "Firefly"(sans nipples) and I don't recall people being upset that
> Jewel Staite or any of the other women were "objectified" in those ads...
I generalized that statement because I haven't seen this particular ad.
(If it's on "Spider-Man / Black Cat" 3 I'll see it tomorrow.)
Most of the nudity I've seen in print shows pictures of beautiful women,
which is all an image can really do. Most of these seem to be lacking the
text to go along with the images that somehow (through interviews,
articles, etc.) gives insight into what the woman is really like. I don't
see how to do this in an ad. At the same time, if this particular ad is
similar to the ones on the Clive Barker or Sci-Fi channel websites, then I
see no reason for her nipples to be visible in the first place. The fact
that the exposure serves no purpose would seem to imply that their sole
purpose for being visible is to tittilate.
> This isnt about that though. As already pointed out, its about one man,
> once again, trying to put his will on others.
To give him credit, the posts I've seen seem to be of the "I don't like it,
so I'll stop buying it" variety rather than the "I don't like it, so
nobody else should be able to buy it" variety.
starblood
> Sweet Jesus on a stick! Is that supposed to be sexually arousing to
> anybody? Is that the whole 'objectification' you're talking about?
> It is my personal opinion that anyone who actually objects to showing
> that kind of thing, is in fact a sick pervert, secretly looking for
> anything to arouse himself.
I think Timothy Butler has serious issues regarding the human body, and
should seek a therapist as soon as possible. (Preferably a woman. With
breasts.)
starblood
news:20021014181515...@mb-ms.aol.com...
> It still looks like a color proofer changed a white, diaphanous blouse to
flesh
> tone. I don't believe Sci-Fi would run this ad in TV Guide. I'm still
going
> for rogue ad. And Marvel being lazy, of course.
Changing the colour of something isn't going to make it see-through!
starblood
> Okay, so I wasn't aware it was on a PG book. I thought it was ON Saint
> Sinner's cover (although I don't really know if it's PG or not, it
> doesn't look like one to me). Misunderstanding.
Am I the only one who is old enough to remember when you could see breasts
in a PG movie?
Timothy Butler
Look, this isn't rocket science. There's a standard for the books involved.
They're rated PG. Why bother having a rating if you're just going to break
it and your audience can't count on it meaning anything?
Timothy Butler
You know, usenet probably isn't a very good idea for me. You see, when
the 90's hit and the bottom fell out of the comics industry, it bugged
me because I saw my beloved hobby going away.
But when I meet other fans online and read stuff like the above, I can't
escape the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, the comics industry is
dying the death that it richly deserves. Unfortunately.
Timothy Butler
COLIERRANND2 wrote:
>
> >I'm sure that when you were staring at Kirsten Dunst's nipples, you
> >were deeply interested in her personality, her feelings and vitally
> >concerned about her as a fellow human being.
> >
>
> I just love it when people who think they know whats best for the rest of us
> try to make themselves something else(in this case "feminists" in Bin Laden's
> case, he suddenly felt for Palestinians) to justify their push of their own
> "morals" on others. I wonder if Tim is somehow related to Ashcroft....
And I just love it when people, confronted by a someone using their First
Amendment rights to express an opinion that they don't like, have to
resort to sophomoric garbage and insults like the above.
BTW, I can do that, too. I could just say that because you are defending
this ad, you must be a pedophilic pervert who gets his jollies by fantasizing
about children being exposed to sexual graphic materials. Fortunately, I
would never say that because Ibhave enough decency not to make up insulting
assertions about you. Would that the reverse was true.
>
> >I think you're playing semantic games now. And that problem isn't in
> >my head. It's in yours. We weren't talking about being pleased. We
> >were talking sexual arrousal, and you're the one who made the equation
> >of faces to breasts. If you've got a face fetish, I think that you may
> >need help. I don't think society should change to accommodate your
> >hang up.
> >
> >--
> >
> >Tim
>
> Gotta disagree, its in YOUR head. Noone else wants to complain to Marvel about
> a stupid set of nipples.
We'll see.
Timothy Butler
COLIERRANND2 wrote:
>
> >Yes, my kids know about breasts. They also know about modesty, respect
> >for other people's bodies, and that you shouldn't objectify people.
> >
> >--
> >
> >Tim
>
> I doubt it. That's why their more likely to be serial killers.
>
You know, this is utter garbage. You guys need to learn how to deal with
people who don't agree with you. Or maybe just plain grow up.
Timothy Butler
I haven't and wouldn't take my kids to see Spider-Man for several reasons. No
doubt that will open me up to a lot more mocking here, but I would point out
that I am simply exercising my responsibility as a parent. Remember how folks
like you, when confronted to parental objections over the content of certain
popular media, respond with, "If you don't want your kids to see it, don't let
them see it. You're the parent. Take care of your own kids."
That's what I'm doing.
Timothy Butler
COLIERRANND2 wrote:
>
> >And yes, this parent will be complaining. I don't appreciate Marvel
> >sticking this entirely inappropriate advertisement on the back
> >cover where I didn't notice it until after I had purchased the book.
> >
>
> Yes oh yes! Please protect everyone Mr. Parent! Its up to you! Yea...And join
> the PMRC and The Parents Television Council so all can media can be like Little
> House and the Falwell show....
>
> I'm gonna puke now...
>
> Censorship SUCKS!
Apparently, so does Free Speech, in your opinion. That's all I'm doing by
letting my opinion be known.
Timothy Butler
I guess, considering some of the comments that have posted here and some
of the attitudes of the people who disagree with me, I cannot take that as
anything other than a compliment. Thanks.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I haven't and wouldn't take my kids to see Spider-Man for several reasons. No
> doubt that will open me up to a lot more mocking here
I think that's a wise choice. It's tough for non-parents to remember
that kids react differently to the amount of violence (for instance)
found in the climactic battle scenes. When I worked Free Comic Book Day,
several parents talked to me about what they thought their kids were and
weren't capable of handling.
I'm also suprised to see people wonder why anyone would have a problem
with topless women on a comic cover. This is America, we're conflicted
about sex, remember? :)
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Review of The Science of Superheroes, Comics for Sale
Timothy Butler
Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
>
> Timothy Butler <tbu...@ford.com> wrote:
>
> > I haven't and wouldn't take my kids to see Spider-Man for several reasons. No
> > doubt that will open me up to a lot more mocking here
>
> I think that's a wise choice. It's tough for non-parents to remember
> that kids react differently to the amount of violence (for instance)
> found in the climactic battle scenes. When I worked Free Comic Book Day,
> several parents talked to me about what they thought their kids were and
> weren't capable of handling.
>
> I'm also suprised to see people wonder why anyone would have a problem
> with topless women on a comic cover. This is America, we're conflicted
> about sex, remember? :)
Thank you, Johanna. You restore my faith in the comics community. You
are dead on. The violence is the MAIN reason why my kids are not allowed
to see Spider-Man.
As for the sex issue, yes, we do seem conflicted. What I don't understand
is why the conflict draws such ire from some people. I mean, insulting me
is bad enough. But going after my kids is too much. (Although, to be fair,
the person involved was probably insulting my parenting style more than my
kids.)
Samy Merchi
> "Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>> I've seen Kirsten Dunst's nipples,
>
> Where did you see them? I'd like to see them also. Merely for
> purposes of arousal and objectification, I assure you.
Spider-Man movie. The scene when it's raining hard and Spidey saves MJ
from rapists. She's Miss Wet T-Shirt incarnate.
Shy Guy
> "Shy Guy" <his__s...@hotmail.com> wrote on 15 loka 2002:
> > "Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>
> >> I've seen Kirsten Dunst's nipples,
> >
> > Where did you see them? I'd like to see them also. Merely for
> > purposes of arousal and objectification, I assure you.
>
> Spider-Man movie. The scene when it's raining hard and Spidey saves MJ
> from rapists. She's Miss Wet T-Shirt incarnate.
Oh, certainly. I thought you meant you saw her bare breasts, nipples
included. Bummer.
MattLB
> "Shy Guy" <his__s...@hotmail.com> wrote on 15 loka 2002:
> > "Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>
> >> I've seen Kirsten Dunst's nipples,
> >
> > Where did you see them? I'd like to see them also. Merely for
> > purposes of arousal and objectification, I assure you.
>
> Spider-Man movie. The scene when it's raining hard and Spidey saves MJ
> from rapists. She's Miss Wet T-Shirt incarnate.
You do realise you've just proved the point. Kirsten Dunst becomes Miss
Wet T-shirt because you can see her nipples. That's objectification.
MattLB
Eoghann Irving
You wrote:
> I'm also suprised to see people wonder why anyone would have a
problem
> with topless women on a comic cover. This is America, we're
conflicted
> about sex, remember? :)
I've been trying real hard to stay out of this particular thread.
Mainly because I think its a fuss about nothing. However.. the
woman isn't topless. She's wearing a top, it was just rather
transparent. And yes, that does actually make a difference. As
does the issue of whether it was provocative. These are things
that get taken into account as far as ratings are concerned.
My second point is that American's aren't conflicted about sex.
The British are conflicted, Americans are schysophrenic about
sex. I find this rather sad, but not very surprising.
Eoghann Irving
--
Solar Flare - Everything Fantasy & Science Fiction
News, Reviews and Commentary
http://www.sflare.com
Win a $25 Amazon.com Gift Certificate
Johanna Draper Carlson
> However.. the woman isn't topless. She's wearing a top, it was just rather
> transparent. And yes, that does actually make a difference.
Not to anyone concerned that you can see nipple on the back cover of a
superhero comic. :)
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Reviews of Betty & Veronica, Freemind, The Norm, Tuesday,
Brian Henderson
<moonh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Am I the only one who is old enough to remember when you could see breasts
>in a PG movie?
You can see breasts in a PG movie now!
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>And I just love it when people, confronted by a someone using their First
>Amendment rights to express an opinion that they don't like, have to
>resort to sophomoric garbage and insults like the above.
As opposed to, say, MARVEL exercising their First Amendment rights to
tell a story, you mean?
MattLB
> > I think you're playing semantic games now. And that problem isn't
> > in my head. It's in yours. We weren't talking about being
> > pleased. We were talking sexual arrousal, and you're the one who
> > made the equation of faces to breasts.
>
> We were talking about whether something objectifies women, and I'm
> pointing out that faces and breasts produce no different reaction in
> me, vis-a-vis objectification. Whether the reaction is arousal, or
> pleasure, or disgust is irrelevant. The point I'm making is that a
> bare nipple or vagina is inherently no more objectifying, pleasing
> or arousing than a bare face.
Inherent properties of bodyparts are irrelevant when talking about
titillation and/or objectification, which is all about your mind's
reaction to them. Humans (and indeed all animals) are biologically
programmed to react to sexually relevant bodyparts, so a breast isn't
the same as a face in that context. It's because certain body areas
provoke a reaction that society prefers/demands they are covered in
public. The display of such areas in public is never going to provoke a
neutral reaction. Women will react differently than men to the
apparently topless Saint Sinner ad. Teenagers will react differently to
40 year olds. Parents will react differently to single guys and so on.
In the context of a child's comic (not that children are necessarily the
major consumer) a topless picture is inappropriate, because sexual
material is inappropriate as children aren't sexual beings (yet), but
are very suggestible. Will seeing breasts on the back of his comic turn
an eight year old into a drooling antisocial groper? Unlikely. They may
just find it funny, or they may think that displaying their breasts is
what evil women do (the women in the ad are clearly supposed to be
evil/demonic/bad - with or without visible nipples).
If they regularly see topless women in their comic they may start to
think that all women like to show their breasts - that's what women do.
Who knows what the actual message received would be? You're fine with
it, but maybe you'd think differently if you were a parent and you can't
know that until you are.
> If it was, biology textbooks should be
> banned too.
Again, context. In a biology textbook it is talking about bodyparts, and
not people. The photos won't look like Playboy shoot either.
MattLB
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>But when I meet other fans online and read stuff like the above, I can't
>escape the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, the comics industry is
>dying the death that it richly deserves. Unfortunately.
Maybe it isn't the comics industry that's dying, but pathetic,
puritanical idiots like yourself. We can only hope.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>I haven't and wouldn't take my kids to see Spider-Man for several reasons. No
>doubt that will open me up to a lot more mocking here, but I would point out
>that I am simply exercising my responsibility as a parent. Remember how folks
>like you, when confronted to parental objections over the content of certain
>popular media, respond with, "If you don't want your kids to see it, don't let
>them see it. You're the parent. Take care of your own kids."
>
>That's what I'm doing.
Then why can't you manage with comic books?
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Apparently, so does Free Speech, in your opinion. That's all I'm doing by
>letting my opinion be known.
You're using your free speech to suggest very strongly that Marvel's
free speech be restricted.
Sure, that makes sense.
Timothy Butler
Don't bother him. He's thinking.
~consul
> "Shy Guy" <his__s...@hotmail.com> wrote on 15 loka 2002:
>>>I've seen Kirsten Dunst's nipples,
>>Where did you see them? I'd like to see them also. Merely for
>>purposes of arousal and objectification, I assure you.
> Spider-Man movie. The scene when it's raining hard and Spidey saves MJ
> from rapists. She's Miss Wet T-Shirt incarnate.
And from what I remember, the trailer actually showed more time of her wet shirt
than the actual movie. In the trailer, you definitely saw how cold the rain was,
in the movie, it was not as long a shot.
--
till next time,
Jameson Stalanthas Yu http://www.dolphins-cove.com
xdedes...@dolphins-cove.com (remove x's to reply)
~consul
>>Amendment rights to express an opinion that they don't like, have to
>>resort to sophomoric garbage and insults like the above.
> As opposed to, say, MARVEL exercising their First Amendment rights to
> tell a story, you mean?
Corporations have a different standard, a more pronounced nuance as to "free
speech". A lot of corporations are now getting flack for misrepresentations in
what could be 'ads' or 'corporate memos' or 'press releases'. (particularly
towards labour practices and standards abroad for US corps.)
Timothy Butler
Well, I can honestly say this - I've never lost control in a debate
to the point where I actually wished death on someone. Congratualtions,
Bri. They outta make you the poster boy for the anti-puritans.
--
Tim
Puritan, Proud, and Not Dying ;-)
Timothy Butler
Right on. Do you know of anyone who's trying to take away Marvel's rights?
I don't.
Timothy Butler
And I've done that how, exactly?
>
> Sure, that makes sense.
Not to me, it doesn't. As a matter of fact, you're not making any sense.