Yes, it's happened again... colour me unsurprised

[eumelia]

Hey, remember the Mary-Jane Fiasco?

Well, it started a few days ago here (contains images which are NSFW) at Pink Raygun.

I've since read many, many commentaries on this thanks to fangirls_attack and I really didn't know what to add myself.
As often happens when living in a time-zone far away from the hub, I kinda missed the initial brouhaha of the Wonder Woman Body Paint Job.

Let me first state that I don't think porn is inherently bad, just like I don't think the sex industry is inherently bad.
Let me tell you what I do think is bad:
Exploitation and Objectification.
Yes, friends it's same old, same old once again and still, still it won't get into people thick heads that Women, especially Super Heroine Women are not sexual objects.
They can and usually are sexy, but they are not sexual.

Why do feminist and in this case the feminist fangrrls have to re-iterate this point time and time again!
Is it really a novelty?
Is it really so difficult to understand that women's bodies are not fucking separate from their brains and personality!.

Oh and yes, I take offense to the fact that Wonder Woman, the female Super Heroine, one of the Big DC Three, has been reduced, by Playboy, into a body paint.
It in fact, infuriates me!

Comments

[avgboojie.livejournal.com]

I must object to this sentence of yours: Women, especially Super Heroine Women are not sexual objects.

Women (including Super Heroines) ARE sexual objects, AND other things at the same time. As are men. The problem is not when people treat women as sexual objects when it is proper to do so (I would get really hurt if people weren't to treat me as a sexual object once in a while) - it is when they treat them as a sexual object when it ISN'T proper to do so.
Fight it as much as you will, Wonder Women IS a sex idol and a coveted fantasy for many men (and women, one might add). I don't see any reason not to give room to this fantasy - as long as other aspects of the same character and of women in general get their dues.
Playboy deals with the female sexuality. Why shouldn't it portray the sexual aspect of said sexual fantasy, just as myriad fanfics and slashes do to oh-so-many totally surprised characters who were never supposed to be sexual objects to begin with?

Oh, yeah, the Mary-Jane IS disgusting. But that's not because it objectifies the character, but because it does so in an improper context. An action figure shouldn't concentrate on the bimbo aspect of a character who should be far more diverse than that.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

The problem is not when people treat women as sexual objects when it is proper to do so (I would get really hurt if people weren't to treat me as a sexual object once in a while)

Um, do you mean it's good for people to treat each other as sexual beings? Because that's a good thing. As a sexual object? Not so much; that's dehumanizing.

[dharma-slut.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah, the Mary-Jane IS disgusting. But that's not because it objectifies the character, but because it does so in an improper context. An action figure shouldn't concentrate on the bimbo aspect of a character who should be far more diverse than that.

Exactly, and thank you-- yo0u've said it better than I could have. Sexy, bent-over Mary Jane would have been fine with me-- just not over the laundry basket.In fact, over the laundry basket would be fine, if it were clear that Peter Parker was coming up behind her. Bent over the laundry basket for thousands of slavering viewers- kinda disrespectful, I thought.

As for Wonder Woman? Well, her costume is damned easy to turn into body paint. It always was. Playboy is NOT the first to have done that.

Playboy deals with the female sexuality. Why shouldn't it portray the sexual aspect of said sexual fantasy, just as myriad fanfics and slashes do to oh-so-many totally surprised characters who were never supposed to be sexual objects to begin with?

In all fairness, our host here doesn't seem to be a slasher, at least as far as a quick look-through, anyway. But-- yeah. I could not deny anyone their own kinks. Nor would I ever, ever tell someone that they had n right to have a kink because it isn't mine, or because it's more radical than mine are. Not when almost everything I think is natural and normal is in fact illegal in at least half the States of this country!

Carolyn, sometimes-- take it from a fifty-year-old queer woman-- Object is just the thing. :p

And yes-- I would LOOOVE to see some big-muscles man in Batman bodypaint and a cape...

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

If it were the cover of a comic, or in any way sponsored by DC, then yeah, it would be sketchy as hell (and also objectification, but that goes without saying), and I'd be seriously irritated at DC. But this is Playboy, and objectification of women is pretty much the entire reason Playboy exists. Which may be a problem in and of itself, but isn't really something you can blame the comicbook industry for.

Hey, it could be worse. She could be tied up to some kind of phallic object, like all of those Golden Age Wonder Woman covers. At least BodyPaint!Wonder Woman still has some agency, and isn't gagged and bound with her own lasso or something.

Would it be wrong/bad for me to admit that the picture is actually kind of hot?

[jennem.livejournal.com]

Isn't Wonder Woman and her likeness trademarked / copyrighted by DC?

And, if that's the case, then wouldn't this spread have to be authorized, in some way, by DC (assuming Playboy CYA'd)?

[liviapenn.livejournal.com]

Yes. Over on Greg Rucka's LJ (ruckawriter) they made this point. DC would have had to license this. Otherwise we'd be hearing about the lawsuit already.

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

If you look closely, the bodice of the "costume" doesn't actually have the Wonder Woman "W" symbol, so I'm betting it's unauthorized. DC's probably chosing to ignore it because protesting would stick their name in news stories with "Playboy" associated with it, and draw even more attention to it.

[jennem.livejournal.com]

I seroiusly doubt DC's and WB's lawyers would agree with that thought process. Wonder Woman is trademarked. If you ignore trademark infringment it can invalidate the 'mark.

Here from Metafandom

[lennoxmacbeth.livejournal.com]

Would it be wrong/bad for me to admit that the picture is actually kind of hot?

I hope not, because I thought it was a great cover. They have a cute girl for once and I loved the body paint. :D

But, I guess this is why a lot of women don't see me as a woman. I knew there was a reason I have a boy-type and a girl-type self. :}

[laura-holt-pi.livejournal.com]

As Wonder Woman was originally devised to fulfil the fantasies of male comic readers, I'd say claiming she is anything other than a sexual object is a bit strange. Did you happen to notice the kinky boots and abbreviated outfit?

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I'd recommend you read some Wonder Woman comics and you'll see there's a little more substance than just her sexy boots and her abbreviated outfit.

In any event, Wonder Woman's creator, William Marston, tried to create a female character who could be on the same level as the other big two of DC, Superman and Batman.
She was the first Super Heroine who could compete and be equal to them, in the Silver Age she was considered a feminist icon (she still is in feminist fangirl circles) and as I've said Marston's aim was to write a character with equal abilities and chances as other super heroes, but she happened to be a woman.

The reduction of Wonder Woman to a spread, just when she was getting a new run in DC, written by Gail Simone (a feminist herself) is a tell, in my opinion, of how much power she was gaining as a character.

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

Marston's aim was to write a character with equal abilities and chances as other super heroes, but she happened to be a woman.


... who was into bondage ^_^. William Marston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Moulton_Marston) was also a psychologist (he was instrumental in the development of the polygraph) with some interesting theories about the rehabilitation of criminals, and dominance and "loving submission."

Diana was intended to be a strong, powerful woman right from the get go, but there's also been a sexual component to the character all along. There's a reason she features so strongly in a lot of male comics readers' fantasies -- she was supposed to be "an alluring woman stronger than themselves" for men to "submit to."

DC, needless to say, has not always lived up to that (ex: Wonder Woman getting depowered in the 70s).

[ariss-tenoh.livejournal.com]

Here via metafandom. I have to say that I don't understand why it would infuriate you. DC comics has a mostly male readership. And Wonder Woman as a character was designed to please men. You don't think a woman fighting crime/with super powers would really wear a revealing outfit like the one she wears do you? It doesn't even qualify as protective gear.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

As I wrote to laura_holt_pi, the creator of Wonder Woman, William Marston, set out to create a woman super heroine as strong and as capable as Superman and Batman.

Seeing as Wonder Woman as bullet/laser proof bracelets and faster-than-human instincts she doesn't need protective gear, like Batman.
Wonder Woman, if you read the comics, I don't know if you do or don't, you would know that Diana has more personality than a blow up doll created to titillate the male readership of DC. And just because there is a male readership doesn't mean that there isn't a female readership well and it certainly doesn't mean that that female readership shouldn't complain or be offended when a favoured character is reduced into wank fodder.

I didn't like it when Hollywood did it to Batman either.

[ariss-tenoh.livejournal.com]

Seeing as Wonder Woman as bullet/laser proof bracelets and faster-than-human instincts she doesn't need protective gear, like Batman.

If you're going to use that argument about her not needing protective gear, why does Superman wear an outfit that covers all his body then when he's pretty much indestructible? And please, it's not because he needs a disguise since that doesn't sound convincing. Now that you mention it, I can't recall offhand a comic super hero who shows as much skin as the female ones.

I'm sure there's a female readership, I used to read comics too, but we're not the main target being catered to.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

No doubt females show more skin in comics, seeing as comic books are a mirror of real life, like almost every medium, but the medium here isn't the problem, it's the message.
In fact it isn't even the same medium we're talking about, like in many cases of traveling through one medium to another something is altered and lost, and in this case the power, strength and character of Diana is thrown out the window when she is reduced to body paint on a playboy model.

T&A isn't what Diana represents no matter how the pencilists draw and colour her.

Most comic book readers, me included, don't mind or even care about the way the costumes are designed, one could argue that female superheros wear revealing outfits in order to throw off their (usually) male enemies, that's interpretation, and that's part of the fun.

[ariss-tenoh.livejournal.com]

one could argue that female superheros wear revealing outfits in order to throw off their (usually) male enemies, that's interpretation, and that's part of the fun.

*blinks*
If you meant that seriously then I'm sorry for laughing, but that's the best "interpretation" I've heard to date for female costumes.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

No, no, that's okay, you can laugh, it is amusing.

I've often thought Catwoman dressed like a Dominatrix merely to throw Batman off his guard, because clearly... the man has issues :)