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

[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. :}