Comic by Comic points out this cover by the usually awesome Alex Ross, showing an upskirt panty shot of Mary Marvel. There is some criticism about this cover, as it sexualizes a teen character.
But if we are working from the premise that even hard core illustrated depictions of teens and children are okay -- because they don't "hurt" anybody -- why should anybody get upset at this cover?
It's well-known that there is a big market for "barely legal" depictions of teenage girls. In the interest of free speech, shouldn't DC (or any other company) be allowed to have covers like this? Especially if it could bring in more money?
In fact, the sexualized teen Supergirl should have been defended by free speech advocates in the same manner as other high-profile cases, right? The fact that DC felt they were "forced" to change Supergirl (and I don't care what their official story is on the matter, I know better) was a blow for free expression, right? The equal of if Alan Moore was asked to cut scenes out of "Lost Girls," right?
But it all boils down to the following...
This is "low-brow" comics:
And this is "high-brow" comix:
No one is ever going to do a free-speech dinner for DC's right to publish images of sexualized teens in their superhero comic books. Even DC themselves would be too damn embarrassed to attend that dinner.
But if we are talking about freedom of expression, then isn't DC in the right if they want to publish covers like the above Mary Marvel image? And if that is the case, aren't "feminist bloggers" who complain about this and other "sexist" imagery in comics really against freedom of expression? In fact, isn't a lot of what feminists complain about as being "sexist" in the media just -- AGAINST FREE SPEECH? And if *that's* the case -- shouldn't they be publicly called out on it by self-appointed crusaders of Assorted Freedoms?
Lastly, if we are saying that any drawn image is "okay" because it's only imaginary and not hurting anyone, should there be any complaints about racist imagery? For example, those who are against Memin Pinguin. Or how about Jack Chick? To rail about Jack Chick's portrayal of a number of groups of people -- homosexuals, Catholics, Pagans, etc. -- would be really railing against free expression, right? Even to be critical of the images undermines one's stated belief of "images are harmless." If the images are truly harmless -- why criticize them? Why not just live-and-let-live, like one big happy family of creative ideas in a free society?
And yet, comic book bloggers are going to still complain about this image and that. It's inevitable. And implicit in those complaints is the idea that though these images and stories are "imaginary" -- they have a potential to negatively impact others. And if those images have a potential to negatively impact others -- that means they are not essentially "harmless."
As for me, I don't care for the Mary Marvel image. But I know the audience it's catering to. A flash of cooch, a knowing smile. What do all those budding Hollywood child-actresses say in interviews? "I'm not yet a woman, but no longer a little girl! Tee-hee!" Hollywood does it too, all the time. Don't make it right, tho. But it's a mentality as tenacious as head lice.
I can see the blog headlines now:
"Comic Industry Goes All Out To Defend Mary Marvel Cooch Cover; Benefit Dinner Starring Moby."
Good post!
ReplyDeleteDon't back down!
No one said such depictions are OK. I will not say another word on the issue other than to ask, do you believe violence or sexualized violence against women should be illegal and a jailable offense? If not, why not?
ReplyDeleteAs far as sexualizing teens, I agree, but the problem is hardly localized to comics. How long have we had a miss teen USA pageant? Isn't that sexualizing teens?
Social pressure, societal pressure, and especially a consumer's right to criticize and boycott is always acceptable.
ReplyDelete"It's well-known that there is a big market for "barely legal" depictions of teenage girls. In the interest of free speech, shouldn't DC (or any other company) be allowed to have covers like this? Especially if it could bring in more money?"
ReplyDeleteNot in the interest of free speech. Commerce is not speech.
One thing I've found funny about criticism of Turner's Supergirl artwork as sexualized is that my teenage sister, who doesn't own a stitch of revealing clothing, loves his artwork on Supergirl. It's bright, clean, pretty (the art is) and she looks powerful. Sure, she's skinny, but so are a lot of teenage girls, my sister and cousins included.
I always find it hard to understand people who think this Supergirl image (http://www.zaldiva.com/images/POSTERS/SUPERMAN/supergirl_fromkrypton_poster1.jpg) is poorly drawn, but think things like this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/licinius/sandman.jpg) are wonderful art.
Talk about completely missing the point. Of course DC should be ALLOWED to put whatever they want on the covers of their comics. Whether they choose to or not is entirely up to them. Whether they choose not to put a naked underage girl on their cover is up to them, because they may see it in bad taste.
ReplyDeleteAnd Freedom of Speech works both ways, it is perfectly acceptable for anyone who does not like the cover to state why they don't and their reasons. Sure people will be pissed about it, but it's your right.
Maybe I misread your argument, but it sounded like you thought people were trying to defend the Freedom of Speech by telling people what they can and cannot write. It just seems ridiculous to me.
Ross does just about everything from that "worm's eye" angle so I guess the up-skirt was inevitable. Did it need to be a teenager though? I don't know anything about any of that stuff to have any kind of investment as a fan. When I look at that I do not see Mary Marvel. I just see a token pin-up girl in a very unimaginative pose.
ReplyDeleteI love pin-up style art and I think it has it's place. That place being with an adult audience.
Wow, the cover of Alex Ross is amazing
ReplyDelete*sigh*
ReplyDeleteI wish there was some way to make people understand that the legal right to free speech and free press do not preclude any sort of social censorship.
The point of free speech is not to loudly proclaim one's own views or fetishes, it's to promote discourse. The ones really against free speech here are the ones trying to silence you, Val (though I suspect you know that). If they want to have an actual debate with you, then more power to both of you.
But to the rest of the Internet: Stop using "free speech" the same way Bush uses "patriotism"; It's not "you're either with us or against us," it's "what do you believe will make a better future?"
oh now you've done it cal, you are comparing "art" to "commerce". i can see it now, not only will the kiddie porn advocates come at you with pitchforks, but now the free market advocates as well.
ReplyDeleteyou are sooooo in for a world of hurt now....
i love to see the rafts of obvious self interest and hypocritical thinking people build for themselves. i mean if alan moore does it we have to defend him like he was the 2nd coming, he can do no wrong. but when it is a corporation if is vile and offensive.
depicting children sexually is vile and offensive every time it happens. even if/when masters of their craft do it.
to not voice the same complaint to our heroes as we would our enemies displaces them from the lexicon of heroes. as once a hero is infallible, they move to the same position of the unquestionable despot.
i am not sure about you, but ming the merciful was never a hero to me.
So I'm surprised we haven't seen any commentary on this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1428128.ece
In any case, I don't see Mary Marvel as a teen, or as a sexual object personally. That isn't meant to invalidate your viewpoint, but sometimes I think we read a little too much into a picture.
"But if we are talking about freedom of expression, then isn't DC in the right if they want to publish covers like the above Mary Marvel image?"
ReplyDelete*In* the right, or *have* the right? The former is debatable... the latter, a given.
"And if that is the case, aren't 'feminist bloggers' who complain about this and other 'sexist' imagery in comics really against freedom of expression?"
Only if they advocate legal restraint. If they're simply voicing their opinions in hopes of eliciting change, then they're actually *championing* free expression.
Now, there *is* a hazy middle-ground out there. For example, on one end of a spectrum, we have:
"I disagree with Valerie, and tell her so."
...and on the other, we have:
"I disagree with Valerie, and demand that she be arrested."
In between is something like:
"I disagree with Valerie, and demand that Blogger yank her site."
*Technically*, that middle ground is legit speech. I would never argue that someone doesn't have a right (and we're talking about rights under the law here) to do that. But I would disapprove, on the grounds that it's a cheat, and more than a bit chickenshit.
"Even to be critical of the images undermines one's stated belief of 'images are harmless.'"
Nothing is harmless. Anything from Play-Doh to an arch look can hurt the right person at the right moment.
But to be legally actionable in a diverse society, a behavior should be directly, tangibly, and predictably harmful to someone, and only then if said someone cannot make reasonable efforts to avoid exposure to the behavior.
You seem to be glossing over an important difference: the difference between criticism and censorship. The act of criticizing is not in itself an act of infringement against free speech; quite the opposite, in fact, it's merely an expression of it.
ReplyDeleteCensorship, on the other hand, can easily be an infringement against free speech. It's an act which enforces restrictions on what can be said or done.
The people who criticize DC for it's treatment of its female teen aged characters are not the same as the people who raided Christopher Handley's home for "obscene manga" and are now trying to put him in jail for its possession. Nobody who advocates for free speech but criticizes the depictions of teen aged female characters in comics would ever suggest putting the people who create and buy and enjoy those kinds of comics in prison for twenty years over cartoons.
And that's something you seem to have no problem with, and in fact actually appear to be advocating: sending people to prison and ruining their lives because they had the audacity to look at cartoons. Gross, icky cartoons, perhaps. But cartoons nonetheless.
Comics blogger in "continually unable to tell the difference between taste and legality" SHOCKER.
ReplyDeleteoh oh man I don't even know. ><
ReplyDeletelike i HATE sexualizing young girls teens "barely legals" little kids. I abhore child porn, loli, and drawn stuff.
and hell I just read lost girls and the stiff with kids? made me really uncomfortable! ( i mean i love alan moore, and the art was pretty! but I was still squicked it made the book a big ol turn off for me)
and porn is cool! i just think it's only good with consenting adults! Does that make me weird??
I also hate that no matter what it seems like the only way girls have any value is sexually, whether people admit that or not. Heck i even worry about getting old someday not because I'm scared of wrinkles but because I'm scared of losing my value as a person in the eyes of men. But even then I suppose I'm not being valued as a person just a pair of knockers.
and knockers and cooches sell books...
The only thing that worries me about arresting people for drawing things (even really horrible awful things) is I don't know when the line will be drawn! I don't know who can draw that line...
I wouldn't want MY stuff censored (even if my comics dont even have swearing in them) and I wouldnt want to be arrested for anything I drew...free speech seems like a double edged sword to me.
BUT I think it does cross a line when it can lead to hurting someone. I think drawn child porn can lead to real child porn which means real kids getting hurt, and that's terrible.
Anyway I say. If people are aloud to draw whatever they want. Then I'm aloud to protest it and complain about it.
(p.s. I really hope i didn't offend you or bore you with the long post. I really like you and respect your opinion and blog.)
I think there is a big difference between this case and the simpsons "porn" case.
ReplyDeletePeople are arguing that this image might be inappropriate. The same logic can be said for the simpsons thing.
But the difference, it's with the simpsons, a person it charge with criminal offence and a judge is according rights to lines on a sheet of paper.
Arguing that is something is not appropriate is one thing, putting people in jail is another thing.
I think your moral compass needs to be adjust...
There's a mountain of difference between criticizing a sexualized image of a widely available superhero and arresting the artist for the creation of child pornography. It's a hasty generalization to assume the two examples in this case are so closely related.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the over-sexualization Mary Marvel has been going through lately is a simple reaction to the action of no longer being able to over-sexualize Supergirl.
ReplyDeleteDC needed an Icon Teen "Trashy" superheroine, because they think girls nowadays can relate to that.
Supergirl turned out to be too much of a role model for young girls to fit the bill, and they couldn't go to the next in line - Wonder Girl - because of all the heat they already get with Wonder Woman.
Batgirl (any of them) was not an option because a teenage girl fighting thugs with the cooch hanging out there... Not very "Dark Knight".
To them, the next in line would be Mary Marvel, who is a character big enough that would create a buzz, but small enough that people wouldn't be soooo outraged.
Personally, I like the new MM costume for the same reason I like Spider-Man's Black Suit.
Simplicity.
That said, a costume like that in an underage character SHOULD mean certain angles were avoided by the artists.
OR if they are actually going for the "Pseudo-Goth" thing, then do the same MOST girls do when wearing short skirts AND PUT HER INTO SOME LEGGINGS OR SOMETHING!!!
Honestly, I'm not that bothered by the cover itself, or the art in it - rather the character that's the center of attention.
ReplyDeleteI kind of liked the original, innocent Mary Marvel, that's all. I don't have a problem with sexualizing teen characters per se, although I think there is a level of appropriateness depending on the character and whether the title is for mature readers.
As far as Lost Girls goes, I haven't read it and I don't intend too - not because of the alleged pedophilia content (which depending on who I listen to seems either non-existent or depraved), but because I'm not a huge fan of Moore's using characters in the public domain and putting his own spin on them just to tittilate himself.
It's the same reason I was pissed off by his horny aggressive Rupert the Bear in LOEG.
There is a big difference between criticism and legal prosecution.
ReplyDeleteCriticism is fine, free speech applies to everybody. Alex Ross Cover or Savage Tales DON'T hurt anybody. They are after all, just pictures. I can understand people not liking it for various reasons and speaking out against it. Same goes for racist imagery. Criticize it, boycott it, send angry letters to the publishers, etc.. all this is perfectly fine in trying to shape what is being published to make it more to your liking. Free speech applies to everybody. That's what democracy is all about.
I do think I understand where you come from. Images like this may cause people to think less of those depicted in that manor. And with some people, it can cause them to treat those depicted in that manor as less than human. Even to the point of violence. When that happens the law prosecute that behavior. And yes I know the law isn't perfect (nothing is) and requires some improvement which I'm sure some people will forever be working on.
But not everybody who looks at a racist image is a racist. Pervy images do not force people to act pervy towards women/children against their will. Most people are capable of viewing those things without being influenced to act out in way that harms those depicted.
Thus, we don't (or shouldn't) prosecute and ban those images. We prosecute the few folks that do act out against those depicted negatively.
I can understand people wanting to stop the bad behaviour/crimes before they start and see this as the cause of it. But then we are in thought police territory. I don't think anybody can accurately predict who will and won't act out.
And yes I would be at a free-speech dinner for DC's right to publish images of sexualized teens in their superhero comic books. Not because I agree with the pictures (I don't agree with lolicon either), but because I disagree with somebody else telling other adults what comics they can and cannot consume. Albeit "for the children" or whatever excuse they come up with.
There's a pretty thick line between criticism of offensive speech/art and criminalizing it.
ReplyDeleteI'm never going to be an ardent defender of sexualizing children (minors) in art (meaning drawing/writing without a real child involved). In fact, it often bothers mell-healed. But, I'm also not in favor of making such art illegal.
The problem is that when attempts are made to criminalize offensive speech/art, people have to step up and defend the targets even it feels kind of icky to do so. I'll freely admit that I'm not the man for the job, and I'd even call it a character flaw. But, I also won't criticize those who are willing to step up and do what I consider to be the right thing.
Is there even any consistency re: the Marvel family's real ages anymore? Powerless Mary Batson looked to be the same age as Holly and Harley (early to mid 20's) in her appearances in Countdown. Freddy Freeman looked to be in his twenties in the "Trial of Shazam" maxi-series even though Billy looked prepubescent in the preview that was published in that "Infinite Crisis" tie-in book.
ReplyDeleteCertainly there's some level of hypocrisy at work - but I have to admit I see a very big conceptual difference between arguing that something is offencive, demeaning, and advocating vocally that it should be rightfully condemmed publically (ahem), and declaring something illegal.
ReplyDeleteThe analogue to drawing parallels between the Simpsons case and Ross' cover (and I'm all over the record of detesting pretty much everything DC's done with Mary recently) is that Ross should go to jail for his cover.
As someone who works in fiction, as reprehensible as the material was, do you not find it an uncomfortable rubicon to send someone to jail for ten years for something they drew? (I'm aware the individual in question likely didn't create the material he was found with, but the president hold's regardless).
Yes, the case in question is deplorable. Yes, it raises disturbing questions about whether or not we mightn't want the person in question locked up regardless. But at it's core a judge decided that something someone imagined had equal legal weight with an action to a living person.
Freedom of speech is always a sticky wicket, because the fringe of engagement, where the war is actually fought on a daily basis over the millenium, is always profoundly uncomfortable gray zones... that's why the battle is being fought there.
I don't particularly like Danny Hellman, but I see importance in his legal struggles as it relates to the case that might be next.
Maybe it's just me, but I see a stark difference between action(s) one want to vocally condemn and outcry, and get individuals (or corporations) to recognize (... they being avatars for society as a larger whole) -- and actions we incarcerate individuals for.
This isn't Ross's first time with a cover like that. If you look at the latest series of the Justice Society of America #3 with Cyclone you can see her inner-thigh pretty clearly. It's darkened on the cover, but if you look at promos still left behind on google it's pretty "clear" down there.
ReplyDeleteI understand that something like this hurts people, and for it to be so public and part of popular culture to the point of vestigial logic-mindedness of our society can be appalling. We've moved past the efforts of returning to those days that seemed like they didn't exist. All we can do is move past these superficiality and pushes for vanity from pop-culture and the media. We're too far past the point to censor, we have to play the game because this is a free-thinking society. And, by playing the game in a world of cynicism, where sarcastic and sardonic humor is a conversation norm, you ridicule and make of fun. You have to juxtapose things so that they can be contrasted and compared by everyone who sees. You can't tell "it" to stop, you have to tell people how low, crude, and pathetic some things can really be. Pretty self-evident, but it is so hard to pull off when the things that are wrong with a society are the "norm."
Why is it that ONLY the panty shot "sexualizes" a teen.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't putting her in a slutty short skirt and slutty boots do that already?
It is not contradictory or hypocritical to deplore the images and examples you provide while still supporting free speech. A distinction needs to be made here between matters of poor taste and matters that should be prosecuted by the law. If I choose not to buy one of the comics you mention because of its sexualized depiction of a teenage girl, or even if I complain about it online in a blog or message board, I am not simultaneously attacking the creators' rights to create something like that, nor am I calling for their prosecution on grounds of child pornography.
ReplyDeleteThere are, in fact, many things in the marketplace which I deplore and will never purchase, even as a joke. A trip through any month's PREVIEWS will reveal many such items. In addition, I hate that, in this day and age, there is still a market for items featuring the Confederate flag. But in a free society such as the one we live in, such things are a part of the deal. The best we can hope for is to educate enough people that such things are deplorable, and that can hopefully lead to them becoming economically inviable. And that educational goal is where complaints on blogs and message boards can serve a real purpose.
Also, if we start passing laws to make such images illegal, then we run the risk of criminalizing something that is really valuable to the culture. A law against illustrated child pornography, for example, would in all likelihood make illegal an autobiographical comic where an artist graphically depicts his or her experience with childhood sexual abuse. Such a work would not only have a positive psychological effect on the artist, but it also might provide a sense of catharsis and the motivation for a reader with similar experiences to come forward with his or her stories of abuse. And that would be a true loss.
So, a distinction should be made in those who protest the images and works detailed in this post. One can firmly wish that such images did not exist and use whatever medium available to criticize them, but that doesn't mean that person must also necessarily wish to criminalize such images.
I love your blog, but after three posts on this, I really feel like you're missing the point, and -- further -- confusing criticism with legal action. If the US government sued DC over teen cheesecake, then I'm sure the CBLDF would absolutely step in to defend them. If a reader were sued for owning issues of Supergirl or Superman/Batman with revealing images of Supergirl (and I own the S/B run which includes her original arrival, which includes a naked -- if covered up -- Supergirl, Supergirl wearing jeans with a peekaboo thong and a belly shirt, Supergirl in Apokolips bondage-wear and Supergirl in the panty-shot-prone costume that MA KENT supposedly made her), then surely that reader would be aided by the community as well.
ReplyDeleteThat's NOT the case. Frankly, there is a long and glorious tradition of saying "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." There are times when we must defend things that we personally find repugnant in order to prevent the loss of liberty. Freedom of expression is an incredibly precious and delicate thing, and any laws that curtail that expression must be predicated on a single principle: that the expression will cause harm to specific people. This is summed up very nicely in the saying "The right to swing your fist ends where the other's nose begins."
We must not equate "harm" with "offense," as virtually everything will offend someone. I'm offended by the idea of pornography featuring Lisa and Bart Simpson, but I'm not HARMED by it. I'm also offended by anti-gay sentiment, by religious extremism, by racism -- but when we're talking about mere words, I'm not harmed by them. Only when those words are joined by action against me and mine can I show harm. The laws against child pornography stand, ideally, on a simple principle: in creating child pornography involving real children, you do those children harm. In viewing that pornography, in distributing it, in creating a demand for it, you contribute to that harm. But a U.S. Supreme Court precedent actually states that child pornography cannot be extended to include imagery created independently of any actual children. Because no children are harmed in the process. (That's the U.S. Supreme Court, obviously. The situation in Australia is different, but strikes at the basic question of free expression within a society.)
In defending free expression against the machinations of government, however, we do not forfeit our right to say, "No. I find that repugnant. Do what you want, but I'm going to speak out against it, and I'm not going to buy it." That's the beauty of the market. If you don't like something, you can READ SOMETHING ELSE. You can write letters. You can blog. You can refuse to support the company that publishes such tripe. But that's not the same as telling the government it's okay to censor something. It's not the same as levying legal penalties against someone for drawing dirty pictures of people who don't exist, or possessing those same pictures of wholly fictitious people.
We can fight and kvetch and criticize all we like, but we must stand up to protect the right of free expression even when we find that expression repugnant. Because to do otherwise is to risk abandonment when other people find US repugnant.
This post is fantastic but the name of the fictitious benefit made me snort laugh and almost spit water on my monitor!
ReplyDeleteAre comic book fans aware of the fact that there are many magazines which publish actual PHOTOS of women in underwear or even naked? Is it the costume that gets these guys warm or what?
ReplyDeleteAs for me, I'm going over to CBS.com to watch the Victoria's Secret fashion show. It has actual PEOPLE in panties!
That cover is offensive. So is Simpsons porn.
ReplyDeleteBut I wouldn't want it to be illegal to possess either.
This is a straw man argument. There is a huge range of options between approval and throwing people in jail. I've seen few if any people arguing that cartoons of the Simpson's kids having sex should be praised. They are saying people shouldn't be thrown in jail for it.
ReplyDeleteBy this logic, if one cannot complain about "showing Mary Marvel's cooch" if they fight jail time for questionable art, then turn about is fair play. Why aren't you out there advocating Joss Whedon be thrown in jail for showing an underage girl having sex with a 200 year old vampire? Real people were used in that depiction, after all. Should be a slam dunk case.
Val, there is a difference between having a right to do something, and that thing being a good idea. This cover certainly isn't a good idea, no more than Homer-on-Maggie porn, but the right to make them anyway still exists.
ReplyDeleteA benefit dinner. Let me guess, there would be nude models covered with sushi or other finger foods for your noshing enjoyment.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think it's perfectly acceptable to criticise something, without that being taken as saying that other people should not be allowed to read, buy or purchase the material you criticise.
ReplyDeleteSecond, a commercial company is in a position to respond to criticism, if they feel it will affect or benefit sales or levels of embarassment. As, indeed, is anyone.
Third, what's so bad about censorship anyway? It gets a bad rap on the internet. I blame the US Constitution.
I like this blog, but sometime, it sets my nerves to twitching. So much snark over a difference of opinion.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe very passionately in personal expression, and therefore the first amendment. I think DC has the right to publish Mary Marvel's cooch, that anonymous weirdos can draw the same in explicit detail, and that anyone who cares to can complain about it. The difference is DC is a corporate entity answerable to their consumers. In a legal sense, they are also the artist, and free expression is not the first priority of a publicly traded company. Apples and oranges, to a large degree.
Ultimately, I think this is about aesthetics. I don't get turned on by Simpsons porn either, but I'd rather those that do have access to it to satisfy whatever cravings they happen to have. I believe access to pornography, as well as violent cinema/video games/etc., have contributed to 30+ years of violent crime in decline domestically. By extension, I'd much prefer pedophiles and ephebophiles exercise their predilection with comic illustrations than anything actually involving children & teens.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
ReplyDeleteI guess cause I am a big ol MO I don't even notice stuff like this.
ReplyDeleteI honestly never had an issue with Supergirl, and didn't even notice the Mary Marvel part til you pointed it out.
I just think they are trying to look fabulous, even if it means a little beave in the wind, j/k.
:)
Well perhaps it's me, but I'd rather it be Mary (whose age is somewhat indeterminate but her empowered form is stated to be now fully adult in body) with the subtle cooch shot that is mostly gidden by her skirt,than say Diana in the same generic hero pose with star-spangled panties in full view thrusting her cooch at the reader.
ReplyDeleteYou're missing the point of the argument. You assume that everyone is against a sexy teenager drawing (not a fair assumption) and use that false assumption in your argument that sexualizing young women is wrong therefore people who oppose the imprisonment of someone possessing naked child cartoons are also wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting debate: whether or not cartoons can be harmful, and it's one worth having. All we're saying is don't prosecute people who have cartoons, prosecute them for committing crimes.
I'm sure that most of the people incensed the Mary Marvel cover would be more enraged at someone being fined and imprisoned for possessing it.
Show me a blog post where someone said DC does not have the RIGHT to post teens in a sexualized manner. I'm sure there are many blog posts that don't like them, but show me the one that says DC does not have the RIGHT to publish anorexic Supergirl.
ReplyDelete"And if that is the case, aren't "feminist bloggers" who complain about this and other "sexist" imagery in comics really against freedom of expression?"
Here bloggers are just complaining and giving arguments on why these images are in poor taste. And that's great. But if any went as far to press court action against DC, then plenty of people would take umbrage with that, as that's really unconstitutional.
"In fact, isn't a lot of what feminists complain about as being "sexist" in the media just -- AGAINST FREE SPEECH?"
Nope, and anyone who says differently is probably taking a disagreement too personally or misinterpreting what "against free speech" really means. Feminist bloggers, comic bloggers, and any ol' blogger can bring forth any umbrage they'd like against sexist imagery and why it's inappropriate in the currently displayed contexts -- it's their right and anyone who says different is wrong.
So to answer your first question in the post, people can absolutely get angry about the Mary Marvel cover, but even the blog you linked to didn't say it should be banned. There's no issue there. It's more a debate on appropriateness of such attire and pose in a mainstream superhero comic.
As for DC feeling "forced" to change Supergirl, it felt more like a win for market forces and internet protesting than self expression. I have the right to free speech when I write for my composition grad school classes, but I don't have the right to make my teacher think my work is just fine and she should just deal with it. No, if I want to stay in the class I better meet her expectations. Same deal with DC. DC can make Supergirl anyway they want, but if they want to stop the tide of complaints, they should listen more.
And people can be offended by imagery, but that doesn't mean it's harming them. To think the two go hand-in-hand isn't giving the general populace enough credit.
Jack Chick comics offend a lot of my sensibilities, morals, and activities, but you know what? At the end of the day it's just some dude's ramblings, and I move on with my day and my life. He can say all the garbage he wants, as is his right, but I don't have to be there to listen to it. That's my right too.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWithout prior knowledge of who that character is (i.e., a pre-teen girl wrapped in magicks that physically [but not intellectually or emotionally] transform her into a super-powered adult [a concept I've always found disturbing whether applied to girls or boys]), is it a sexualized image of a woman or a teenaged girl? Absent an "insider's" context, it's just sexualized imagery of adults.
ReplyDeleteAnd all I can say is, thank God it's not gore or zombies or something else for which America is paradoxically so much more tolerant.
The perverse American love-affair with violence aside, this culture has been sexualizing children and teens since forever in an effort to financially exploit adults, teens and children by separating them from their cash. Ever since some genius who had taken an oath to "do no harm" decided to apply what he knew about the psychology of children to start marketing and advertising products directly to them (remember Saturday morning cartoons?), we've been racing headlong into the territory of unforgiving shame or some ring of Dante's inferno. Sex sells; it's the backbone of American capitalism, of which consumer spending accounts for 70% of our GDP.
So, in this case, we have a sexualized image that's designed to separate money from males of various ages but of uniformly little maturity. And the culture wants to keep it that way because it works. It's the same target audience that will buy beer because of the associated imagery of bikini models and "male enhancement" pharmaceuticals because they've been convinced that what women "really" need to feel satisfied is a whiny, needy, self-absorbed guy desperate to find relief for a four-hour-long erection.
It's the same ideology that savages girls' and women's self-esteem to separate them from their money--for clothes, cosmetics, diets, &c., and the magazines that promise to help them navigate any future fashion faux pas, to offer tricks on changing their shape, or to share surefire tips on keeping a guy satisfied in bed.
I mean, as a culture, we've taken all the trappings of what should be an intimate mating ritual and made them commonplace. I can't tell you how many women I've met who defend their right to dress in a way that is exclusively designed to attract male attention, but they claim it's an expression of their feminine power. It's like they don't know the difference between prudent self-revelation and boundary-crushing overexposure that leaves them vulnerable to further manipulation.
But my pet peeves aside, all our talking about it hasn't changed it and won't change it. We've known what's going on for decades, but the situation gets worse even though we've identified it and passed laws and tried to better define boundaries. Ironically, the best we've come up with is "community standards"--which are so manipulated as to be irrelevant. The people who can't figure out a wholesome way to wheedle money out of people (because, really, there isn't a nice way) defend their approach as "free speech," and if it negatively affects somebody's self-esteem (or several million peoples' self-esteem), oh well; it isn't against the law.
In other words, the war's already been won by the other side--decades ago, actually. We can't win, because the enemy doesn't even need to field a team. We're not going to change the system, no matter how righteously we rake at the gates of heaven. It won't change as long as the main driver in this culture is making money. It's the wrong fight.
The right fight is doing everything we can to help the people we know pierce the veil and attain awareness of the manipulation and to shore up their esteem and self-perceptions by helping normalize their experience. Interventions on an individual basis--burning the magazines, flushing the herbs, helping them select a wardrobe that "feels" right--will do more. We need to en"courage" people.
Then the junk above won't have any effect at all. And that's win.
It should really be understood that the Freedom of Speech regards governmental censorship.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Simpsons incest porn (or the sexualization of teenage superheroes, for that matter) is "okay", and would have no qualms about publicly decrying it if the mood hit me. But that is very different from my saying that it should be illegal, which I believe was issue surrounding the Simpsons porn "high-profile case".
If the Supergirl cover were deemed illegal, I have no doubt at all that many people who find it distasteful would nevertheless rush to defend DC's legal right to publish it.
Bitching about a cover you don't like and even insisting that the publisher withdraw it, is categorically no different than telling someone to shut the hell up for calling your mother the C-word. Neither action would reflect on your belief in "Free Speech"--but insisting that they be illegal would.
I am only slightly torn on this sort of thing. We MUST have freedom of expression in art and in editorial expression, commentary, etc.
ReplyDeleteI think comics are/can be art, but I promise you that Mary Marvel in her pervert fan service mode is not political speech, is not something done to make a point or voice an opinion that needs protecting, any more than the 1001 panty shots that turn up in nearly every manga.
That cover isn't nearly as offensive to me as a lot have been, but it isn't classy, and isn't the way even evil teens should be portrayed. I am more annoyed by the culture that seems to demand that sort of thing than I am by the thing itself in many cases(Which I admit is probably failing to see the whole picture).
The really gross thing you are missing is that in order to paint that cover, Alex Ross had to stare upskirt at a teen model for 3 hours...
My argument is that illustrated child porn has the potential to hurt other people.
ReplyDeleteThe counter-argument was that illustrated child-porn can't hurt other people -- it's only pictures. You could have pictures of *anything* -- racist stereotypes, child porn, a step-by-step diagram on how to murder your neighbor -- and it is okay, because it's only *pictures*.
If it's all *only pictures* -- then I don't see why anybody should get upset at any picture. To get upset at a *picture*? That would mean that on some level, the picture was harmful. But as we have already proven in the cp argument, pictures can't hurt anyone.
Right?
If they can't hurt anyone, why don't you just live-and-let-live? By criticizing it, you are admitting that the art in question has the power to offend.
And more than that -- by calling something out as sexist (or any -ist, for that matter), you are making a judgment call. You are saying that your views on morality, ethics, etc are superior to someone else's.
But isn't that the argument against my viewpoint? That by condemning illustrated child porn, I'm imposing my morality on others?
You don't think that a feminist argument on cheesecake art -- which I have done many times -- imposes morality too? And in your line of reasoning, imposing the morality of one on others is wrong - correct?
What happened to DC and Supergirl was a pressuring to change the way a character was drawn and portrayed -- a pressuring by the public based on a moral assessment. It might not have been a legal case. But it sure as shit was a censoring.
And aren't you all outraged by that? Yes? No? If you were all outraged -- where WERE you?
Oh I know, you want to go back to your argument that all you care about is "legislated censorship." De facto censorship, organized boycotts by church groups, etc -- not on your radar. Gotcha.
And the point I've heard over and over again is:
"I think this is vile and wrong, but I'll fight to the death to protect its right to exist."
And I'll now leave the conversation with that sentence hanging in the wind, self-evident, a testimony. Look it over, think about it, read each word, put it all together. This is the creed. "It's vile and wrong but I will defend its right to exist."
And thanks, Mr. Walsh.
ReplyDeleteBut anyway, enough of this divisive chatter.
ReplyDeleteIs anybody up for the Mary Marvel Cooch Benefit Dinner?
Grant Morrison probably is.
ReplyDeleteI mean, panty shots or crotch grinding? Do either of them actually make Mary Marvel an interesting character?
Didn't figure.
Just to lighten up the proceedings a tad, I'd like to point out to certain offenders that "possessive its never splits."
ReplyDelete"It's" means "it is."
:)
I get why you think its offensive or inappropriate (although I don't 100% agree - probably more like 85% agree). But I'm a 25yo male didn't see it sexually at all when I looked at it at first.
ReplyDeleteI saw some of Ross' work that wasn't his best, a trite pose, and honestly, my eyes were drawn to her face in that shot (as poorly done as I think it is).
Now those Supergirl pieces are WAY more sexual to me. I don't think they're offensive or inappropriate (or arousing really) but they completely guide my eyes in a way that makes me think of her more as a "body" than a person.
Just my initial impression.
(PS Val - this is Ian from Beer and Comics. I'm a big fan, and I owe you a thanks for the blogroll linkage)
Valerie: Only if no phallic foodstuffs are served.
ReplyDeleteDo you actually think that a cartoon of the Simpsons having sex with each other has an effect equivalent to yelling "Bomb!" in a crowded theater? The place you're suggesting free speech should stop has far too great a potential to incarcerate people who have harmed nobody. I don't recall seeing anyone claiming your morals are wrong; they're simply arguing that to be a free society we need to be very careful about limiting freedom of speech, no matter how repugnant we find it.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is your space, and it's your prerogative to continue shredding a straw man to bits of rag and fluff. However, it doesn't engage with the many reasoned arguments people have posted.
"My argument is that illustrated child porn has the potential to hurt other people."
ReplyDeleteSo does Beatles music. That Helter Skelter song, look at all the people hurt by that song.
And the neighbours dog! Always Barking. It can drive a man to kill people.
Virtually anything has the potential to harm other people. There are many cases of copycat serial killers. Heck, one kid snatched an airplane and crashed it into a bank after 9/11.
Potential to hurt somebody isn't a good reason for banning because anything and everything has the potential to hurt somebody.
"The counter-argument was that illustrated child-porn can't hurt other people -- it's only pictures. You could have pictures of *anything* -- racist stereotypes, child porn, a step-by-step diagram on how to murder your neighbor -- and it is okay, because it's only *pictures*."
The Step by Step on How to Murder your Neighbour thing can get you sued in civil court, as victims can make a strong argument that now armed with the detailed knowledge that you provided them somebody could turn fantasy into actuality. But outside of that, yes you are correct.
"If it's all *only pictures* -- then I don't see why anybody should get upset at any picture. To get upset at a *picture*? That would mean that on some level, the picture was harmful. But as we have already proven in the cp argument, pictures can't hurt anyone.
Right?"
Right. But people get upset not because the picture is harming them, but because they disagree with what the image says. Delving a little deeper I could say they fear that the picture will lead others to harm them, or somebody else. But I don't think it's fair to paint everybody with that same brush.
But back to the one point, being offended is not being harmed. If it were, then all society would have to stop dead in it's tracks right now and not do a damn thing until we all die. People get offended over everything. Fundamental Christians are offended that prayer has been taken out of schools and want it back. Others are offended by the thought that schools forcing kids to pray to a god they don't believe in against their wishes. I'm sure somebody out there is going to be offended that the new Black Panther isn't black. I'm sure somebody out there is offended by your posts, assuming that you believe them enjoying that Alex Ross cover makes them a pervert.
"If they can't hurt anyone, why don't you just live-and-let-live? By criticizing it, you are admitting that the art in question has the power to offend."
That is true, but some people do so anyways as is their right.
"And more than that -- by calling something out as sexist (or any -ist, for that matter), you are making a judgment call. You are saying that your views on morality, ethics, etc are superior to someone else's."
Yup. But it is a democracy we can choose to speak out about stuff that bothers us and publishers of that stuff can either ignore us or continue to publish it and see if there is a market there, or change tactics and publish it in limited quantities, aimed at a tiny niche and charge enough to make it profitable. All of this is perfectly legal.
"But isn't that the argument against my viewpoint? That by condemning illustrated child porn, I'm imposing my morality on others?
You don't think that a feminist argument on cheesecake art -- which I have done many times -- imposes morality too? And in your line of reasoning, imposing the morality of one on others is wrong - correct?"
Incorrect. Expressing an opinion is not imposing.
"What happened to DC and Supergirl was a pressuring to change the way a character was drawn and portrayed -- a pressuring by the public based on a moral assessment. It might not have been a legal case. But it sure as shit was a censoring.
And aren't you all outraged by that? Yes? No? If you were all outraged -- where WERE you?"
Nope, not outraged at all. It was a choice that DC made. They could have made a different choice and seen if all the criticism lead to reduced or increased sales. The important thing is they had the ability to choose and did what they wanted to. In this case they wanted to not offend people further and made the choice to do that.
"Oh I know, you want to go back to your argument that all you care about is "legislated censorship." De facto censorship, organized boycotts by church groups, etc -- not on your radar. Gotcha."
De facto is not really De facto. It is likely thought as De facto as it's run by people that really doesn't want lose money and thought this would cause that to happen. For every church group there could have been a group of fans saying "I'll buy 5 of what you're publishing just to ensure you don't lose money on it." But that didn't happen so they decided to go the route of less risk. The voices of people upset were louder than those who liked the material. They might have made a wrong assumption about how many people out there enjoy that type of material.
And no company is entitled to profit inducing sales levels. People can choose not to buy something if they don't like it. That isn't censorship, that is the market place at work. People choosing not to buy Blue Beetle because it's not Ted Kord under the mask isn't censorship. Same goes for Supergirl because of how she is drawn.
"And the point I've heard over and over again is:
"I think this is vile and wrong, but I'll fight to the death to protect its right to exist."
And I'll now leave the conversation with that sentence hanging in the wind, self-evident, a testimony. Look it over, think about it, read each word, put it all together. This is the creed. "It's vile and wrong but I will defend its right to exist."
Yup that is 100% correct. Thing is, someday somebody might decide something *we* like is vile and wrong and try to get it banned. Simply put, free speech applies to everybody, not just the majority that we agree with. If it gets taken away from one group, that means it can be taken away from us as well. Which is why we defend stuff peoples right to say stuff, even if we disagree with what they are saying.
And it cuts all ways. If Lost Girls, Supergirl or the Lolicon Manga gets banned, that can and will be used to ban the other books as well. Which is why people stand up for books they disagree with.
Val, I understand your point, my problem is what sort of harm are we talking about?
ReplyDeleteThe Supergirl stuff has been frustrating and offensive because the creators on the comic were putting "sexy" ahead of logical character design and actual storytelling. The same thing goes for any sexist depiction of women wherein women are considered sex objects. However, it is not PHYSICALLY harmful. No real human being is harmed because someone possesses cartoon pornography or upskirt shots of teenage superheroines or that someone drew it. However, the arrests that have been made claim that someone IS being harmed - an imaginary character. Something that does not have a social security number, something that does not have true consciousness, and something that needed a real human being in order for it to exist at all. It is wrong to punish someone and alter their life radically for something they did not do.
And as said above, critique is not the same as censorship. Censorship would be demanding that it be considered illegal and punishable to create it. Critiquing it is saying, "People shouldn't buy this because they should know better and the people who created it should know better." It's saying that a material is not harmful on a physical level, but rather conveys a message that is false and/or questionable in its validity or morality.
"an autobiographical comic where an artist graphically depicts his or her experience with childhood sexual abuse. Such a work would not only have a positive psychological effect on the artist, but it also might provide a sense of catharsis and the motivation for a reader with similar experiences to come forward with his or her stories of abuse. And that would be a true loss."
ReplyDeleteI think you made that up. No such work would ever be created, or if it were, it would be evidence of some other pathology, not remedial.
prove me wrong.
Since all else has failed, it seems, let me try a hypothetical: suppose some artist out there wrote and drew an autobiographical, earnest exploration of her own sexual history. Suppose that work included depictions of herself, as a minor, involved in sexual activity.
ReplyDeleteNow suppose that the artist were then prosecuted for creating and distributing child pornography due to that work. Suppose that readers of that work were prosecuted merely for possessing it. Where would your indignation and snark fall in that case? Hell, it's a better case than the one we've got: at least the hypothetical involves real people, even if none of them are children anymore. And sure, maybe it wasn't intended as pornography, but you know pedophiles are going to get their jollies from it, so really, it just promotes pedophilia, doesn't it?
The law is not a scalpel. The law is a hammer, and it's a big one, and it strikes indiscriminately. Readers must be scalpels. Consumers must be scalpels. We must decide what is art and what isn't; we must decide what we find acceptable in our own lives and what we don't; but when we set the hammer of the law on something we don't like or appreciate or approve of, we risk bringing it down on something we do.
So yes, even when I find specific forms of expression repugnant, I will fight the government to the death to preserve the right to free expression. The fact that I may personally criticize that expression, that I may counter it with my own words or my own work, that I may take my almighty dollar elsewhere, does not make me a hypocrite, to my view. There is a difference between holding a debate and jailing anyone you disagree with. There is a difference between not reading/consuming something and insisting that everyone else abstain, too. And sometimes that difference puts me in a position to defend something I personally abhor, but there we are.
For the record, I wasn't even saying that I believe the Simpsons porn shouldn't be illegal--but "social censorship" and illegalization are different animals, with different implications and consequences.
ReplyDeleteIf people object because you criticized the Simpson porn, but approve of your criticism of sexy Supergirl, then there would indeed seem to be an inconsistency. But if you suggested that the Simpson porn should be illegal, and merely objected to sexy Supergirl, then their disagreement with you is not necessarily incongruent, because the implications of illegality are much farther-reaching than those of mere public criticism, even though both constitute a form of "censorship".
Personally, I have no problem with your objections to the Simpson porn, and I don't even have a problem if you think it should be illegal. Freedom of Speech is not absolute ("fire" in a theatre, etc.), and a reasonable argument can be made that pedophilic incest cartoons are significantly detrimental to society (eg, they could incite criminality in pedophiles).
Also, I would not fight to the death for someone's right to say anything he wants. Call me selfish, but my continued existence is far more important to me than some idiot's prattle.
Val wrote
ReplyDelete"The counter-argument was that illustrated child-porn can't hurt other people -- it's only pictures. You could have pictures of *anything* -- racist stereotypes, child porn, a step-by-step diagram on how to murder your neighbor -- and it is okay, because it's only *pictures*."
No one said they were harmless in a broad sense. It's just that no one is directly harmed. Someone still has to take an actual action. I can write a book instructing people on how to commit and get away with murders, rapes, whatever. Someone still has to do follow my rules. (Anecdotally, someone did try one time to follow the directions in a book called "Hit Man" which was a how to kill manual, supposedly written by an actual hitman, but actually was completely made up.)
I own the Anarchist Cookbook and other similar texts that desscribe how to make drugs and weapons. Should giving someone instructions on making a bomb be illegal?
"If it's all *only pictures* -- then I don't see why anybody should get upset at any picture. To get upset at a *picture*? That would mean that on some level, the picture was harmful. But as we have already proven in the cp argument, pictures can't hurt anyone."
Pictures that reinforce negative stereotypes, misogyny, or kiddie porn should be condemned, but they should not be illegal. I am not sure why you have trouble grasping that concept. I also do not understand why you have not suggested that Brad Meltzer and Dan Didio should be in Jail for Identity Crisis.
Alexa D,
ReplyDeleteI have not read any post on this board that has tried to silence Val. Val may perceive it that way but she would be mistaken. We generally support her criticisms. But it's one thing to exercise social censorship, it's another to advocate government censorship as Val has done.
A lot of good posts and I wish I was so moral as to have written them but I have more selfish reasons.
ReplyDeleteI just don't want to get arrested if the cops raid my house, find my wife's mangas and send me to jail for 10 years of surprise buttsex. As is I am already fearful of my wife's yaoi manga as its my understanding a court is already saying its just as bad as Simpsons porn.
However just for the sake of debate lets say they do find a real link to drawn kid porn and more kids getting hurt. Would the majority of people posting here still want it protected?
Also if this stuff really brought in so much cash I think DC would be doing better.
Better stories, better heroes, and yes sex are needed to sail that ship as sex alone can act as a customer poison imo.
DC kinda reminds me of the time I got trapped in a never ending payday lone program. DC needs the softcore porn to survive today but but it just gets them deeper and deeper in the whole.
I'm of the opinion that this image, admittedly a sexually suggestive one, highlights the darkness that Mary Marvel herself is going through - that she is indeed the bad girl now, and is not as innocent or as modest as she once was.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm not quite so sure that she's still a teen. Judging from her more recent depections (Countdown - and yes I actually read it, you can feel sorry for me now), she has to be at least 20 by now!
"My argument is that illustrated child porn has the potential to hurt other people."
ReplyDeleteNo, it wasn't. The lack of debate/argument skills you're displaying is unexpected from a professional writer. Reread what you're written - take the time to clarify your argument and find specific facts and details that will support your argument. By becoming defensive, sarcastic or insulting it makes it seem like you have nothing else to rely on.
Your initial argument was that you disagreed with peoples decisions to defend a person's right to have illustrated child porn, and that you were scared because you would be persecuted for speaking your mind. People replied saying that they don't defend the content, but oppose governmental censorship of any artistic content because of the slippery slope, without attacking your personal opinions. 80 comments later you closed the thread, ending it with supporting evidence that seemed to say that the government should indeed be involved in censorship of certain material. You posted again, this time disallowing comments, saying that you were slammed for being against child porn and said you knew what it was like for people "Afraid to speak one's mind, for fear of swift censor by self-appointed arbiters of What Is Right, forced to fit a rigid and unbending dogma", implying that your readers are somehow threatening you or attempting to censor you somehow. This current post gets even farther away from your original point by confusing criticism and legislated censorship.
"If it's all *only pictures* -- then I don't see why anybody should get upset at any picture. To get upset at a *picture*? That would mean that on some level, the picture was harmful. But as we have already proven in the cp argument, pictures can't hurt anyone. Right?If they can't hurt anyone, why don't you just live-and-let-live? By criticizing it, you are admitting that the art in question has the power to offend."
There is a vast difference between harm and offense. Your argument is now that illustrated child porn is harmful - how is it harmful? What facts can you cite that support this argument? Is offense linked to harm? If so, how?
"And more than that -- by calling something out as sexist (or any -ist, for that matter), you are making a judgment call. You are saying that your views on morality, ethics, etc are superior to someone else's. But isn't that the argument against my viewpoint? That by condemning illustrated child porn, I'm imposing my morality on others?"
No because your original argument lead readers to believe that the government should share your morality. You are free to condemn it, just as other people are free to condone it or condemn it with you since our government lets us as a society decide which art is acceptable to the majority.
"Oh I know, you want to go back to your argument that all you care about is "legislated censorship." De facto censorship, organized boycotts by church groups, etc -- not on your radar. Gotcha."
Considering you've previously mentioned fear of retribution and even potentially lethal violence from your readers, it's confusing that you continue to insult them and imply that they're hypocrites or ignorant of their chosen viewpoints. This is the first time that you've brought up legislated morality vs. socially dictated morality and is unfair to assume what everyone thinks about it. While I commend you for continuing to write your blog in the face of ever present danger, please recognize that not everyone is out to get you because they don't share your opinion.
"And I'll now leave the conversation with that sentence hanging in the wind, self-evident, a testimony. Look it over, think about it, read each word, put it all together. This is the creed. "It's vile and wrong but I will defend its right to exist."
This actually supports your opposing viewpoint, not your own. What your readers are trying to tell you is that they believe that certain things are wrong according to social morals and mores but that the government has no right to dictate what those things are. Because of free speech and our capitalist society, we're allowed, as a society, to collectively decide what it acceptable for the masses - but do not prevent the minority from accessing it in niche markets should they choose to. Within these guidelines and because of free speech we can all choose which causes are important to us and then campaign for or against them as we please.
I think it's totally unfair to even attempt to compare this to child pornography.
ReplyDeleteShe looks at least 30.
In all seriousness though, in the case of this image, no pedo is going to think of this as pornography, she seriously looks like a soccer mom.
Well the whole Supergirl thing as I recall related far more to her uber anorexic looking build than any lack of taste costume wise.
ReplyDeleteTo me that is far more worthy of criticism as something not to promote than any slight sluttage on Mary's part. Hell most any teen these days would look slutty compared to the old days, even the good girls. That's somewhat regrettable but normal and an understandable offshoot of the sexual revolution and early feminism.
Honestly, these characters need a serious update and to lose the mini-skirt look altogether. Sure, it's more functional than most heroine costumes, but still; who in the hell is gonna wear a skirt into a fight or if they're gonna be doing acrobatics unless they're a cheerleader?
ReplyDeleteI have three words for you: "The Chipmonks Movie." Not that CG garbage that came out last year, I mean the animated film from my youth. There are a ton of up-the-skirt shots of the chipettes in that movie! That said, watching it as an adult, it does seem oddly inappropriate for something I watched with my parents.
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between being opposed to such depictions & legal banning of them-- & legal consequences for the writer/artist & reader. I can say-- a picture of Mary Marvel's panties isn't doing society any favors-- without meaning "so I sure hope they make it illegal!"
ReplyDeleteI just want to point out that the sexualized Mary Marvel is also the "bad" Mary Marvel. Wouldn't that cover some of the basic issues with this portrayal simply by stating that bad girls are sexualized?
ReplyDeleteHowever, it opens a whole other can of worm. It may also demonise sexuality. Kinda like what's happening here. Human beings are sexual in nature, and it is during the teenage years that a sexual identity appears, and as such, sexualized teenagers are not in any way wrong, they are exploring the limits of their own sexuality. I think the real issue here is not a sexually charged representation of a teenager's body, but rather a collective desire to repress that sexual nature. By law, we are meant to not find teenagers sexually attractive, however, some people seem to interpret that as "by law, teenagers cannot be sexual."
And this drawing is in no way similar to the Simpson porn case. The porn drawings were not giving the characters a sexual nature, they were giving them sexual activity. There is a world of difference between these.
Finally, if the picture has been a depiction of Mary Marvel, in a one-piece bathing suit, sitting on a beach, people would not have reacted because it would have been better than a bikini...
"What happened to DC and Supergirl was a pressuring to change the way a character was drawn and portrayed -- a pressuring by the public based on a moral assessment. It might not have been a legal case. But it sure as shit was a censoring."
ReplyDeleteWrong.
It was more a case of DC restructuring their initial sleazy reboot to better fit what the character's fans normally expect of her depiction from previous experience. DC merely ran into the same slippery slope of commerce that Disney did when Miley Cyrus posed for Vanity Fair.
This little debate has really opened my eyes.
ReplyDeletePduggie,
ReplyDeleteDid you miss the part where they said, "this is hypothetical?"
BOYS RULE GIRLS DROOL
ReplyDeleteI just want to say I think it's funny that posters keep saying "Costume Choices on Mary's part" and "The way supergirl chose to be depicted" Like they are actual people.
ReplyDeleteNot that it's MEN
making images of women for MEN to look at!!
They aren't REAL they can't make costume choices!!!
they CANT choose how to be depicted, either sexually or non-sexually.
because it's grown up men, making up pictures of teenage girls meant to tantilize and sell their product.
If we were talking about some universal magic shift that made actual teenage girls have superpowers (or hell even just comics made by teenage girls) then we could talk about their CHOICES!!
but we can only talk about how they are depicted.
My argument is that illustrated child porn has the potential to hurt other people.
ReplyDeleteWell in that case does the same logic apply to: alcohol, tobacco, Violent movie/game, Car, Guns, Pop Star, Gansta Rap, Reality TV, internet, religion ect...
Also, we are in a free market society, it's one of the greatest power we have. If I judge that something goes against my values, I can't chose to buy it and convince other people to do the same.
Last month, I was reading 50 DC titles per month. This month I'm reading about 10 of them. Why? Because I think the quality is sub standard and I'm getting with all the clusterf**k crossover and because some of the thing you talked about on your blog.
We are free to chose, so we always mix the law or government in it. It's our wallet you decide what stay or what goes...
"The counter-argument was that illustrated child-porn can't hurt other people -- it's only pictures. You could have pictures of *anything* -- racist stereotypes, child porn, a step-by-step diagram on how to murder your neighbor -- and it is okay, because it's only *pictures*."
ReplyDeleteYes. Anyone should be allowed to draw (or write, or sing, or whatever) anything they want, at any time, for any reason, no matter how vile, awful, or evil I may perceive it to be.
Likewise, I am allowed to say "That thing is vile, awful, and evil."
And, if it is available, you have a right to experience it -- if you choose -- regardless of whether myself or others have labeled it as vile, awful, or evil.
This is how free speech works. And yes, I will defend it.
i emailed val a few days back suggesting that dialogue was needed to help open the people's minds that child porn is not covered by free speech. i can think of no court in the world that would see the correlation between the two.
ReplyDeletei am no prude and a member of the aclu, but draw the line at children presented in sexual poses. there is no reason we should defend this.
sure people can do as the choose and keep kiddie porn (photos/drawn/film/wtfever), but they risk imprisonment. that is a line i am willing to draw in the sand(apparently, val as well), just like that mythical happenstance at the alamo.
there is no difference in my mind in the illegality of this as calling in a bomb threat. no rational advocate for free speech would condone the second, and for the life of me i can not see how they would the first.
Well, I think this has been a very enlightening post.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm surprised at is that we needed to go all the way into DC's March solicitations to find a cover of a teen female comic character drawn provocatively.
It's not like we don't see that all the time. Like this cover of a teenage Magik ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:XMENINFR001_COV_COLv2.jpg
Of course, that's a Marvel title and wouldn't fit the 'anti-DC' bend on any generic discussion that occurs here. And I suppose someone will say as a demon she doesn't count ...
Still, despite hammering away at one comic company rather than the whole business, the discussion is (as always) interesting enough to keep me coming.
I could swear the old, innocent Mary Marvel would also give a flash of underwear, but it was the cotton granny panties look, and not this Brazillian thing she's got going now.
ReplyDelete*sigh*
I miss Bill Mantlo. And 1982.
I want to see Jeff Smith's version of Mary Marvel in panties! WOO! Jeff draws her best!
ReplyDeleteJamison: Sure, its hypothetical. I don't think the hypothetical is remotely possible, or fits with human nature in general.
ReplyDeleteHard cases make bad law. Even if the hypothetical was remotely possible, its so out there that I barely care if it gets suppressed by a law that says "no pictures of kids having sex" period.
" suppose some artist out there wrote and drew an autobiographical, earnest exploration of her own sexual history. Suppose that work included depictions of herself, as a minor, involved in sexual activity."
ReplyDeleteIf that were hit by the hammer of law, nothing I "approve" of is being hit. And even if I did, the social good of a blunt law that hits the pedophiliac literature in general is worth it. Law is tradeoffs too. We are not a place in our society where we have too little self-expression. I'm happy to let the pendulum swing a bit back from the *apex* that its at now.
Valerie, what is your definition of "harm" in this discussion's context? I don't like messing with semantics, but I feel this is important to clear up.
ReplyDeleteI don't usually read long blog-comment discussions like this, but this has a particularly interesting one. Well done, folks!
ReplyDeleteAnd, Autumn: Your words about the hammer versus the scalpel were perfection. Particular kudos to you for one of the best explanations I've read for why the 1st amendment speech protections should exist, and how they should work.
It's nice to be reassured that Tandy Bowen will be dressed in a new full-body burka costume and never shown in any sort of titillating pose in her next miniseries.
ReplyDelete"sure people can do as the choose and keep kiddie porn (photos/drawn/film/wtfever), but they risk imprisonment. that is a line i am willing to draw in the sand(apparently, val as well), just like that mythical happenstance at the alamo."
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that's where _you_ draw the line.
For example, the recent film "Let The Right One In" concerns a relationship between two people who are apparently thirteen years old, and at one point, share a bed together.
"The Tin Drum" is an acclaimed novel (and Oscar winning movie) about a boy who sees the horror of WWII and chooses not to grow up. He models in the nude and attempts to seduce his much older neighbor.
The outsider art of Henry Darger contains themes that could be considered pedophilic, but he is still an acclaimed artist who is studied and admired by many.
Heck, "Leon" (aka "The Professional") is considered pedophilic by some people.
This is why we have free speech, because while you may draw the line somewhere -- and are free to do so -- that does not mean the rest of us agree. Free speech ensures that good art can be created along with the bad art that inevitably comes with it. I'm willing to take that trade-off both as an artist and a member of society.
(And being a fan of Andrew Vachss, I'm well aware of the harm that real pedophilia does to society, as opposed to made-up artistic depictions of it.)
First of all, thank you, Val, for bringing up this issue. It has been interesting reading, and has caused me to reexamine some opinions. Previously, I would have fallen squarely on the side of people being allowed to write and draw what they want. However, your points have made me think further about things.
ReplyDeleteThere must be some middle ground between stifling expression and condoning abhorrent behavior. I'm inclined to think that the distinction between legally allowed, but socially condemned is useful in selecting that middle ground. Would you agree?
Perhaps a step toward a solution is drawing more attention to the issue so that it does get more social condemnation? To that extent, I think that your posts have been helpful. To the extent that you've used sarcasm against those who are adamant about freedom of expression, well sarcasm may be fun or good for venting frustration, but rarely makes someone reconsider their views.
Finally, I'm uncertain what you would consider a solution to the issue. I realize that asking you to give an example of how you would word a law on the matter would just bring a blizzard of hypotheticals that you probably just don't have the time or interest in rebutting, but I'd be interested in reading a more extensive article outlining your views, as well as one from say, the CBLDF. Perhaps the Comics Journal would be interested? This is a serious subject, and I think it deserves more attention and time for further consideration than blogging allows.
Again, thanks for bringing this up.
randyhate, have you seen anyone here defending actual child pornography? One of the main reasons child pornography is not defensible free speech is because its production by its very nature involves the exploitation of children . . . which takes us back to the beginning of the debate and whether or not a cartoon of the Simpsons engaging in incestuous activity should be considered the same thing as photographs of a child being raped. One may judge the cartoon to be obscene without claiming that Lisa Simpson is as much a person as Masha Allen.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main reasons child pornography is not defensible free speech is because its production by its very nature involves the exploitation of children.
ReplyDeleteSince 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court has upheld the opinion that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity. It doesn’t matter how something is created for it to be considered obscenity or not.
To randyhate:
ReplyDeleteThe Mary Marvel cover and the simpson cartoon are not child porn...
Mary and Lisa are both fine and were not harm in the process. They will stay healthy and continue to entertain people for years to come.So the FBI should wait before throwing Alex Ross in jail...
If one person collect cartoon porn (remember we are talking about a cartoon, it's lines traced on paper) for her own pleasure; to jerk himself or have a laugh. Then so be it.
If this person is using those same cartoon to attract minors and the harm them. This person should be in jail. I think that's were you draw the line.
I also have a general question, is the cover Mary getting the snot beat our of her by black adam or else. Would the same discussion happen. Why do I have the impression that the violence would be more accepted than the sexuality.
Is it because the sexuality is something everyone is experiencing, as oppose to violence?
As others have stated, only governments can censor. Church boycotts and other such forms of social action are not censorship. It is not censorship when the pandering pussies at Walmart decide they will not carry a product or Random House decides not to publish a book due to a fear of negative backlash. That's just commerce.
ReplyDeleteIf I have to actually explain to a person why child porn -- illustrated or photographic -- is harmful, there is such a gulf between my point-of-view and said person's that I don't think any explanation would cut it. It's like we are looking at the same object, and you see an apple and I see a fire truck.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's the point we are at in this discussion, really.
pduggie said...
ReplyDelete"an autobiographical comic where an artist graphically depicts his or her experience with childhood sexual abuse. Such a work would not only have a positive psychological effect on the artist, but it also might provide a sense of catharsis and the motivation for a reader with similar experiences to come forward with his or her stories of abuse. And that would be a true loss."
I think you made that up. No such work would ever be created, or if it were, it would be evidence of some other pathology, not remedial.
prove me wrong.
Here's two:
"Daddy's Girl" by Debbie Dreschler
"A Child's Life and Other Stories" by Phoebe Gloeckner
-Bob
About the benefit dinner, I've booked the Knights of Columbus banquet hall. Could everyone bring a tray of baked delicacies?
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I will also agree with some commentors that I personally woul not even have thought of the Ross drawing in a sexual manner unless it was pointed out to me. It seems like the people who notice this stuff may be the ones who have issues.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you.
ReplyDeleteBut underwear on teens in short skirts is a funny thing.
OK, bear with me.
I'm thinking of cheerleaders. You see their underwear all the time. Right?
OK, you don't really. They sort of have a little bathing suit ish thing on underneath it that makes it okay.
It's not a very sexy cut, but it's pretty much just underwear.
I always wondered about that.
I always figured that female characters with those crazy shirt, uber-pleated skirts were doing it cheerleader style, you know? Like they have shorts built into those underwear.
So, you know, since it's not technically underwear it's "okay".
Cuz, you know... if you can fly you're going to have upshots all the time.
But, then again, that does not look like the conservative cut of cheerleader briefs.
And it's creepy.
Yes.
And wrapping power up in here legs (the fondling lightning bolt) only kinda underscores the point.
Yes. So I'm with you.
It's just funny about how no one ever sweats the undies of cheerleaders is all.
Two other points:
1) Isis: worst costume of 52 era D.C.
2) Can Mary Marvel really be a teen character when she goes back to the 50s? Crikey, even Robins' age a smidge over time.
For the most part I agree with JMY, I didn't see it as particularly sexual either, just very slightly so due to the camera angle, but it's not like in manga where she'd also be hiking up the skirt to give us a better view.
ReplyDelete"This little debate has really opened my eyes."
ReplyDeleteDo you mean opened your eyes as in a understanding of how we think we are defending Lost Girls by defending simpsons but you just don't agree with us?
Or do you mean opened your eyes as in the people who read your blog are all sick fucks?
If the Occasional Superheroine had the power to send all the people who liked simpsons porn to jail at the cost of having to do the same with Lost Girls would that be a ok?
If you had a little remote in your hands right now with one big red button that did this would you push it?
I expect your argument to be something along the lines of "Lost Girls is nothing like simpsons porn" with some demeaning sarcasm thrown in for your fans. However I do think your would ignore the button.
If I have to actually explain to a person why child porn -- illustrated or photographic -- is harmful, there is such a gulf between my point-of-view and said person's that I don't think any explanation would cut it. It's like we are looking at the same object, and you see an apple and I see a fire truck.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's the point we are at in this discussion, really.
Yikes! I hope you don't run an apple orchard or sell cars for a living then.
Photographic child pornography can't be created without abusing a child; illustrated child pornography can. That's a pretty wide gulf.
Since 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court has upheld the opinion that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity. It doesn’t matter how something is created for it to be considered obscenity or not.
ReplyDeleteBentcorner, that is correct. That is why I mentioned that one may judge something like the Simpsons cartoon to be obscene without classing it it as Child Pornography. Child pornography is not just obscene, it is actual evidence of a crime. And, as far as I'm concerned, anyone involved in actual child pornography is complicit in the exploitation of children and deserves hefty jail time and getting put on a register of sex offenders at the very least.
The illustration of fictional characters having sex may be obscene, but that doesn't make the person producing or viewing it complicit in the rape of a child. And, in the USA, at least, the laws regarding possessing obscene material are much different than the laws for possessing child pornography.
I wish I could give you a picture of the looks people outside this particular comics/cultural Bubble give me when I explain to them half the shit that has been discussed on these comment threads.
ReplyDelete"And then they said illustrated child porn should be legal, because no actual child gets hurt."
Try this with somebody outside the Bubble some time. You want me to "expand my mind" -- go expand yours as well.
I could go on, but it's pointless. You are seeing one thing, I'm seeing something else, we are not connecting. And I know that in your gracious hearts filled with a love for free speech and free expression, you are content just to let me have my own unique view.
"Live and let live."
Right?
"And then they said illustrated child porn should be legal, because no actual child gets hurt."
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you're super-sick of reading posts about this at this point (100!), but this makes me curious. IS illustrated child porn not legal at the moment?
I haven't thought much about this issue at all in the last, oh, three or four years...I was a reporter doing a story on a dude in my hometown who was being tried for child pornography for writing a story...but at that point, congress was just starting to debate whether or not created images should be considered pornography or not, as emerging technology could make fake child porn look real(Photoshopping, etc), and muddy the waters. But the distinction you mention--no child being hurt--is the one that's always been used.
I don't know what they decided though.
I'm not aware of illustrated child pornography--drawings--ever being illegal on a federal level, but obscenity varies from law book to law book.
Interestingly I am unable to locate any images of even an r-rated nature that depict children sexually in Gloekner or Dreschler's work online. That's interesting either because 1) Their books aren't obscene anyway or 2) Everyone has the good sense not to show any of the obscene bits of their work.
ReplyDeleteI'm comfortable with a jury deciding, if necessary, if their works appeal only to a purient interest. If a jury so decides, I'm not going to shed any tears.
"I personally woul not even have thought of the Ross drawing in a sexual manner unless it was pointed out to me."
ReplyDeleteThat's what the Brave New World wants for you
"In a little grassy bay between tall clumps of Mediterranean heather, two children, a little boy of about seven and a little girl who might have been a year older, were playing, very gravely and with all the focussed attention of scientists intent on a labour of discovery, a rudimentary sexual game.
"Charming, charming!" the D.H.C. repeated sentimentally.
"Charming," the boys politely agreed. But their smile was rather patronizing. They had put aside similar childish amusements too recently to be able to watch them now without a touch of contempt. Charming? but it was just a pair of kids fooling about; that was all. Just kids.
"I always think," the Director was continuing in the same rather maudlin tone, when he was interrupted by a loud boo-hooing.
From a neighbouring shrubbery emerged a nurse, leading by the hand a small boy, who howled as he went. An anxious-looking little girl trotted at her heels.
"What's the matter?" asked the Director.
The nurse shrugged her shoulders. "Nothing much," she answered. "It's just that this little boy seems rather reluctant to join in the ordinary erotic play. I'd noticed it once or twice before. And now again to-day. He started yelling just now …"
"Honestly," put in the anxious-looking little girl, "I didn't mean to hurt him or anything. Honestly."
"Of course you didn't, dear," said the nurse reassuringly. "And so," she went on, turning back to the Director, "I'm taking him in to see the Assistant Superintendent of Psychology. Just to see if anything's at all abnormal.""
"Try this with somebody outside the Bubble some time. You want me to "expand my mind" -- go expand yours as well. "
ReplyDeleteI can't even convince people that comics and games are a form of art most of the time so I will just take your word for it.
Still if everyone keeps saying it is a apple when you see firetruck trust your own gut on the matter, but in the interest of keeping innocent people out of jail at lest take another look to try and figure out how the hell people are getting apple as they can't all be retards.
"I wish I could give you a picture of the looks people outside this particular comics/cultural Bubble give me when I explain to them half the shit that has been discussed on these comment threads.
ReplyDelete"And then they said illustrated child porn should be legal, because no actual child gets hurt."
Try this with somebody outside the Bubble some time. You want me to "expand my mind" -- go expand yours as well."
How delightfully condescending! I have talked about this with some friends outside of your bubble that have no connection to comics or even writing. They find it strange that a professional writer can't structure an argument. A friend of mine put forth the theory that you're trolling your own blog, deliberately using poor arguments and outlandish inflammatory statements in order to get your comment count up. By showing my friends, I boosted your page views, so your most recent comment supports it. I remember the fake feud you had recently and it seems like a plausible theory. I've had difficulty figuring out which writing of yours is genuine or satire in the past, so I imagine anything is possible.
I want to be clear on this.
ReplyDeleteYou want to jail people for creating or owning sexual illustrations of children?
Val,
ReplyDeleteLet me preface the following, by saying I like your blog and I like you, but the following may be a little harsh.
Nobody likes to be condescended to.
"I wish I could give you a picture of the looks people outside this particular comics/cultural Bubble give me when I explain to them half the shit that has been discussed on these comment threads."
Val, I wish you would actually debate this issue like an adult instead of resorting to these Bill O'Reilly like tactics of never actually addressing an issue and instead just saying whatever truthy feeling you have inside. I know you are capable of better.
First, I deal with lots of people outside the comics bubble. In fact, I really do not associate with anyone who reads comics. (I do associate with some guys that play strategy games like Twilight, so they may be close.) I believe most of them and most regular people would agree with the opinions I set forth. Especially when it comes to Simpsons porn.
I also believe the people you speak to may be in their own little bubble.
Second, if you mischaracterize the arguments we make to your outside the bubble friends as much as you have in your sarcastic responses, then it's no wonder they are appalled.
Let me break it down for you:
(1) I support your right to criticize and generally agree with your criticisms of illustrated child porn. I support your right to organize boycotts and take whatever other action you want that is within the realm of the law.
(2) I do not support making it illegal per se. Actually, I do not support making it illegal at all, but at the very least we should avoid a per se rule.
(3) I support your right to criticize and generally agree with your criticisms of illustrated violence against women. I support your right to organize boycotts and take whatever other action you want that is within the realm of the law.
(4) If you ever once advocated making illustrated violence against women illegal, I would oppose that as well.
The difference between complaining and criminalizing is not subtle, and if you believe it is, you really should reflect some more on the topic.
Bradydake I'm with ya on this one.
ReplyDeleteI always thought the underwear under the skirt was actually part of the leotard that the skirt just went over top of.
As for the cut, it's hard to me to see exactly what kind of cut Ross it depicting, so much is covered by the skirt.
"In the USA, the eight major men's magazines (Chic, Club, Gallery, Genesis,
ReplyDeleteHustler, Oui, Playboy and Penthouse) have sales that are five times higher per
capita in Alaska and Nevada than in other states such as North Dakota¾and rape
rates that are six times higher per capita in Alaska and Nevada than North
Dakota. Overall a fairly strong correlation was found between rape and circulation
rates in the fifty states,"
Well Crap!!! Ok you won me over. I am all for arresting people that read playboy as this evidence YOU linked to shows a connection with playboy and rape.
Truth be told I could even believe it to a extent.
As a popular personality in the industry and a leader for promoting good taste and responsibility in comics tell us your views on censorship.
How do you differentiate simpsons porn and lost girls to a judge who thinks comics as a whole are trash? How about other manga?
I would imagine his check list looks something like this.
drawing of what looks to be a underage girl disrobed?
If yes prosecute.
If no then move on to the Yaoi.
Would you defend Yaoi?
Would you defend Lost Girls?
Are you for mature content stickers on some comics and books?
What about books like Stephen King's The Regulators that has a uncomfortable exchange with a boy torturing his mother in a sometimes sexual manner?
This is not some trick question saying that if you would defend this then you have to defend that. I just really want to know.
I'm not sure what people are arguing so strongly for. I know it isn't pedophilia, but then what is it?
ReplyDeleteWhat civil rights are being infringed? As stated before...it is already _illegal_ to view such things. Just because you may not *get caught*, it doesn't make it any less illegal or immoral.
I haven't seen Lost Girls so I can't speak to it. To be honest, I've lost interest in Alan Moore after Promethea.
I wish I could give you a picture of the looks people outside this particular comics/cultural Bubble give me when I explain to them half the shit that has been discussed on these comment threads.
ReplyDeleteAnd nothing validates a viewpoint like people freaking the fuck out over other people's private behavior.
People outside my "atheist bubble" go all kind of nuts when I explain to them about not giving a fuck about Jesus, so clearly I should be thrown the fuck into jail for the inability of a majority to tolerate me, right?
Hell there's all kinds of things we might as well criminalize because ignorant, reactionary motherfuckers might not approve. Hay! You know outside your little bubble, people freak right out when you explain to them how it's totally okay for two dudes to fuck each other up the ass. WE SHOULD TOTALLY THROW TEH FAGGITS IN JAIL! I mean if people outside THE BUBBLE disapprove then that means it's gotta be wrong, right Val?
ReplyDeleteYou keep bringing up the bubble. You may be right about that. What of it?
ReplyDeleteSure, people might give you me a funny look if I tell them that I'm against people being prosecuted for possession or creation of illustrated child porn. But, some people might change their mind if I explain why, why I think it's wrong to ruin another human's life and livelihood over the simple and harmless expression of their fantasies on ink and paper. They might even be inclined to agree that it's a massive violation of human rights.
And some people might not change their minds. To a lot of people, it's perfectly acceptable to destroy another person's rights and even life, if that person in question is deemed a "pervert".
Regardless, the entire bubble argument is moot, anyway. Since when has popular opinion (which can change and shift with location and time) determined what is right? Freedom of Speech exists, and is valuable, for a reason.
"If I have to actually explain to a person why child porn -- illustrated or photographic -- is harmful, there is such a gulf between my point-of-view and said person's that I don't think any explanation would cut it."
Photographic child porn -- using real children -- is harmful because it harms children, and its consumption creates a demand for more to be made.
I assume you believe that illustrated child porn could incite somebody to harm a real child. I believe somebody capable of doing something like that would already be mentally disturbed, and no lack of cartoon porn is going to dissuade him.
Wait, did someone just compare this to gay rights?
ReplyDeleteOk, done.
"ou know outside your little bubble, people freak right out when you explain to them how it's totally okay for two dudes to fuck each other up the ass. WE SHOULD TOTALLY THROW TEH FAGGITS IN JAIL! I mean if people outside THE BUBBLE disapprove then that means it's gotta be wrong, right Val?"
ReplyDeleteIf you really want to change people's opinions outside the bubble, you have to first stop treating them and referring to them as drooling knuckle-dragging conservative religious fanatics. The mainstream media and our pop-culture does this ALL THE TIME! And it IS a blanket stereotype that does no good whatsoever, that doesn't help anything.
This is not how you get change to happen. This is not how you get some people to see your point of view, to lighten up, to open their minds to alternative ways of living.
But while me and other people want to build a bridge on issues like homosexuality, religious tolerance, diversity, etc -- you people come along with this illustrated child porn thing, like a sledgehammer. It's such an insane, sensational, indefensible, bullshit thing -- and it drowns everything else out.
And again, you bring up homosexuality in this discussion as a "slippery slope" argument: "well, if you're/they're against child porn, you/they must be against homosexuality!"
Don't you get tired of such an inane comparison? Don't you know by placing cp and homosexuality on the same "plane," you are being as insulting as the "conservative knuckle-draggers" you picture as the Enemy in your head?
You are representing an extreme point-of-view that only seems "popular" because we are looking at it through the distorted lens of a particular fandom and culture.
And this point-of-view, just to reiterate, is that illustrations of children in sexual situations are harmless and should be legally protected.
Once you take this discussion outside of this particular fandom and culture, the prevailing opinion, I assure you, will radically change.
And you might say: who gives a shit about what the other people think?
I offer: the industry *should* care.
Because if you make legalizing child porn the emblematic struggle for free expression of the comic book industry, you get very little sympathy and support in the larger world. If the CBLDF becomes known to the larger world as "that group that defends child porn," it makes everything else they have to defend that much harder to do.
And I know what I am saying may sound like an anathema to you, but you and everybody who agrees with you can choose to ignore what I say and press on. I really don't care.
Which bubble would that be? I have had serious and reasonable debates with people regarding whether or not Harry Potter is evil or anti-Christian. I'm conversant with members of the Christian Coalition and the Home School Legal Defense Association. They are perfectly capable of understanding that pen and ink are not flesh and blood. They also tend to be very sophisticated in the understanding that a law supposedly written to protect people can be used to harm people if one is not very careful in its definition.
ReplyDeleteI haven't discussed it with them, but they'd probably think that Lost Girls is completely disgusting, wrong and should be banned; I think that Lost Girls is disgusting and badly done, and that trying to ban it would simply fuel sales because people would actually hear of it. I don't think that any of us would think that someone who owns Lost Girls should be jailed and put on a sex offenders register, which is what you support by refusing to see a distinction between illustrations of children engaged in sexual activity (which may or may not be judged obscene according to community standards, artistic value, etc.) and Child Pornography.
Andre,
ReplyDeleteActually, studies show that countries like the Netherlands and Spain where the populace have easy access to hardcore pornography have lower rape statistics than repressed countries.
I have never seen a study, such as the one you are quoting from somewhere. I would like to know where those statistics can be found because I have never seen a correlation between the circulation of porn and rape statistics.
Just remember how strongly you feel about about that sick crap and remember that that here in California we hate gays so much we went out of our way to take away there right they to get married.
ReplyDeleteWe even used reports saying gay people are a dangers to our kids.
As you say right now a prosecutor thanks lolicon and yaoi manga are the same filth. Its not what I would call a big jump from lolicon and yaoi to just yaoi is it?
This one case could find me and my wife standing outside our house in cuffs as our whole block watches all the cop cars outside wondering whats going on and what did we do.
That is something I would like avoided and I just don't think you see the link.
I think you see some perv who probably likes little kids and you justifiably say "Kill it with fire". I say hold your fire tell he makes a real move or we might set more people on fire then was the goal.
I am willing to bet the CBLDF knows it needs to pick its battles and cops raiding someones house over lines on paper of gay porn and other stuff is one of those battles it needs to win.
Cops and you need to be a little less interested about whats going on in everyone's bedroom unless someone REAL is getting hurt.
PS: I protested Prop 8 and was devastated when it passed.
I know at this point there is noway we are going to get you to admit its a little more complicated then you make it out to be but I do hope the exposure we get on your blog reaches others and they are motivated to donate to the CBLDF so they never have to fear getting arrested because a judge can't figure out how old this girl is.
http://www.takeshimiyazawa.com/uploaded_images/posterdone-748354.jpg
I get what you're saying. You think it's ridiculous to champion the freedom to view cartoon porn with underage characters in them. Okay.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I say, however: I think that it is ridiculous, and stupid, and insane to put a person into federal prison, for years, or decades even, over cartoons. Cartoons. Cartoons Cartoons Cartoons Cartoons Cartoons Cartoons Cartoons Cartoons. I literally have nothing beyond that. People are getting their lives stolen from them because they masturbated to the wrong kind of Cartoon. I'm sorry you think differently, that you think that sort of thing is perfectly acceptable, but it's wrong. People should have the right to at least fantasize.
Also, while I'm at it, let me posit a scenario: let's say that I create, for entirely my own personal use, some "illustrated child pornography", using nothing more than a pencil, paper and my hands and my mind. It never leaves my private sketchbook, which in turn never leaves my house.
ReplyDeleteNow let's say that somebody, somehow, finds out that I drew some underage cartoon porn, and they decided that they didn't like that. They could, and this is a real threat now apparently, tell the police and have me charged with obscenity, or if they really want to set an example, possession of child pornography.
That strikes me as a very real possibility, by the way, that something like that could happen. The fact that I made something for myself, by myself, could send me to prison.
There's so much wrong with this, I don't even know where to start. And most of what I would want to say has already been said by others, more eloquently than I could probably manage.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I just find it somewhat hilarious that with all this, with all the offense being seemingly felt over these issues, that you have as one of your sponsors a company that produces and sells this:
http://www.halloweencostumes.com/alice-in-wonderland-sexy-costume.html
Ahh, irony, how I love thee.
I just wanted to say that
ReplyDeleteMary and Billy are 18... (Freddy is 20)
If people are going to get arrested over Mary Marvels crotch... If people are going to have there lives stripped from them and have to live with the shame of being known as that guy with the underage sex comics of Mary Marvel and going to this dinner can help keep a poor kid that picked up a copy from tainting his life well.... I will bring the goddamn champagne.
ReplyDeleteThere is a large gulf from kid porn to gay por... errr ok bad example as it would look like the courts don't think so.
There is a large gulf from simpsons porn and lost girls but hell you have said it better then I could have.
"The difference, I suppose, is in weighing the artistic merit of each work against its adult content. But who will do that? And will the citizens of Guilford have the same yardstick for assessing what is "art" as does New York City or Seattle? And does the medium of the graphic novel itself -- which has been so inextricably bound up in memories of their "funny book" roots -- confuse the issue even more?"
"That's why we have debate, opinions, and laws, folks. It's not black-and-white."
Diana Fan,
ReplyDeleteI find it ironic that you took the time to research a sponsor's website to "discredit" my argument, but you don't have the time to "begin" to respond directly to my point.
And that's really because it's hard to simply say "I support the right for people to look at illustrated child porn."
Why don't you just say it?
Should adults have the right to fantasize about fucking a child?
ReplyDeleteThese are the questions I get.
Really, is this the result of our collective "higher education?"
When I was in high-school and especially college, the majority of my teachers said there was no basis for morality, and that good and bad was in the eye of the beholder. This was the prevailing viewpoint. Well, that and the idea that there is no God.
To get to a point where you do not understand why child porn in any form is harmful --
I'll be honest with you, and I've been holding this back for the entire discussion --
It makes me wonder about where such a viewpoint comes from. Why such passion over this?
"As long as it's just fantasy, pedophilia is ok."
Not ok. Mental disorder. Wanting to stick your adult penis in an eight-year-old's vagina or rectum = serious mental problem!!! See doctor. Get counseling. Even if you are never going to harm someone, do it for your own quality of life.
Then there are the barely-legal fans. I don't see this so much as straight-up pedophilia as I see it as an impulse to have a sexual partner who you are "superior" to. Instead of getting some know-it-all yappy 30-year-old who wants this and that, you get some 16-year-old who looks up to you in some oedipal way and thinks you are awesome. Immature, and illegal in many states. Should comics pander to such immaturity?
Well, if we all want to admit that the industry is completely fallen and in the gutter, nothing more than a machine for the disturbed or immature Ids of adults -- sure! That's what a lot of people are saying outside the Bubble anyway -- or rather, that's the prevailing stereotype. Let's feed into it!
I really do think this discussion needs to be opened up to a wider audience. But then, if I do that -- I fuck over the comic book industry. Because the industry knows that this is a topic indefensible outside this little bubble.
So why don't one of you do it? I don't mean bring it up on another little blog or message board. But let's open this debate wide open to the public. Let's get it on CNN. I mean, Fox News is a given. But how about MSNBC? ABC? The New York Daily News?
See, I couldn't do that with a clear conscience. Because it would make the comic book industry -- and some of the vocal fans -- look like absolute perverts.
"A blogger named WonderWoman5 comments, "there is nothing unhealthy about fantasizing about child porn!'"
Really, do you keep posting here the same argument over and over again because you think you can convince me? Or does it belie a certain insecurity on your end? Is it an insecurity about a position that you know on some level is sort of fucked up, but that if you get 100% agreement on, you could pretend is tenable?
See, by constantly saying that I don't agree with this, I'm poking with a little pokey stick at this 100% agreement thing. And it must, at least for some, really be enraging.
Me, I have no insecurity on it. I hate child porn, and I want it banned. Ta-da. And even if I received a hundred letters condemning me for this position, I would still feel the same way. You can post all day and all night that I'm unfair for being against child porn. You can twist the argument in a billion ways. You can sit with the same people you sit with and gripe and moan. You can bring up Orwell, you can make Straw Man arguments that I must hate every other sexual thing because I hate child porn.
But I'm here. And it's not 100% agreement for you on this issue. Sorry.
I'm done with this thread. Please continue to complain, preach to the choir, and wonder out loud why I would be so crazy and puritanical as to think that fantasizing about having sex with a first-grader is unhealthy.
Thankfully, hardly anyone buys comics anymore, so the possibility that someone will be damaged by it is minimal.
ReplyDeleteActually, when I went and looked at it, I just thought they were bloomers like cheerleaders wear. Sexualizing an illustration of a teen is not the same as child pornography, I think we all know that.
And there is far worse teen cheesecake than this inconsequential drawing by Alex Ross who, it might be added, specializes in a "what if superheroes were real" look - and if superheroes were real, then you'd probably see Mary Marvel's bloomers at the slightest blow of a wind.
"It makes me wonder about where such a viewpoint comes from. Why such passion over this?"
ReplyDeleteI'll make this very simple:
This is not about child porn.
This is about the right to not have _thoughts_ and _art_ criminalized. I am very surprised that a writer would advocate such a viewpoint.
And no, I don't expect you to ever be convinced by any length or type of discussion, but then it's obvious that you never intended this to be a discussion so much as an opportunity to hector an audience you perceive to be a bunch of basement-dwelling nerds who are all wanking off to superhero comics, and thus easy marks (and easy to disregard).
If you're really concerned about this children, I suggest volunteering or making a donation to PROTECT rather than charging the paper windmill of cartoon porn.
"Please continue to complain, preach to the choir, and wonder out loud why I would be so crazy and puritanical as to think that fantasizing about having sex with a first-grader is unhealthy."
ReplyDeletePerhaps you are speaking to a segment of your audience only, but once again you have to completely mischaracterize your opposition.
If you think it should be banned, fine. I disagree. I also believe you are wrong about the "comics bubble." This issue has nothing to do with comics. I am not sure why you choose to se it through that lens. Even if my view is not mainstream, it's far from the only one I hold. I also believe in the legalization of all drugs, prostitution and the ability to own whatever weapons we want (all with proper government registration, regulation, and requirements, of course). I am not comparing these to owning illustrated child porn as a matter of severity - just pointing out other nonmainstream views.
Once again.. Mary as depicted there is an adult..
ReplyDeleteMary and Billy are 18 currently in the DCU.. (Trials of Shazam, Countdown, JSA)
What if you had the picture of simpsons porn not because it arouses you but it's more of a WTF thing you found on the internet and you want to freak you friends out with it. Immature sure. Go to prison, I think that's a little harsh. Sending someone to jail for owning a truly tasteless cartoon.
ReplyDeleteA CARTOON.
LINES ON PAPER!
LINES ON PAPER ARE NOT THE SAME AS AN ACTUAL PERSON!!
Bart and Lisa are not real, have never been real, and can never be psychologically damaged an any sort of way. THEY ARE NOT REAL CHILDREN! My friend who was molested as a child by a "family friend" would probably love to know that the crime that happened to her means as much to some as SOME LINES ON PAPER!
Oh, and child porn is banned. Cartoons, no matter how filthy, depraved, awful, unwholesome, disturbing, sick, terrible, horrible are not. I hate these pictures (and they're not even funny in a WTF in my eyes), but I don't really want to start sending people to prison (populated with real rapists and murderers) for, say it with me, LINES ON PAPER!
Okay, how about this? What if I drew Homer killing Bart and Lisa in a particularly graphic, awful, but non-sexual way? Should I go to prison? Bart and Lisa are the same as real kids, (isn't that right John Walsh)? No? Oh, that's because THEY'RE ONLY LINES ON PAPER! They aren't real!
Oh, and I think that you should totally DESTROY THE COMICS INDUSTRY! I can't wait to see all these filthy, sick fuck perverts that draw these funny books sent to prison where they belong!
Be sure to tell them what you're in for Mr. Comic Book Artist. Sure you cellmate killed a real kid, but goddamn you did it with a pencil and some paper, you both deserve to rot there.
FLESH and BLOOD =/= LINES ON PAPER!
And after we get rid of those skeezoid funny book men, we can go after anyone who owns a copy of Lolita (book or film versions). Right, I mean fuck 'em. They're probably just waiting to fuck a teenager. Right after they drop the kiddos off at soccer practice. Damn you Nabokov, you made me a pervert! Oh and Alice in Wonderland should probably be included on the list of degrading works. I mean the author was a pervert, who knows what magic, perversion inducing code words might be in there?
Sorry for any typos, I'm in a hurry, I've got a pervert, er, comic book club meeting.
re: your last post
ReplyDeleteHoly crap, Val, this is something discussed in the media, in the world at large, outside of your blog, outside of comics fandom.
So many people keep posting because so many have a hard time believing you seriously hold the opinions you seem to hold. And, apparently, an inability to divorce your own opinions from public policy.
The Simpson's porn story was a story in the media. The media talks about this stuff. Congress talks about this stuff. The CBLDF talks about this stuff. There are laws on the books about this stuff. (They talked an awful lot about Lost Girls too...no one outside this bubble you keep referring to probably cares about Mary Marvel, but Mary Marvel doesn't have anything to do with child pornography, other than you putting criticism of that cover for being lame-o in the same category as illustrated child pornography for some reason...well, an attempt at a joke, I guess).
Illustrated child pornography is a controversial issue for society at large, not just something anonymous people using codenames talk about on message boards.
You keep talking about people outside the bubble, but obviously you have a lot of readers who care about what you say and think, so perhaps in the future before you address serious issues like this, you should get outside of the O.S. bubble and figure out exactly what you're talking about before making a post.
Blaugh...i change my mind...I was fucking swayed. By that i mean i accidently saw some simpsons porn while trying to find metalocalypse porn...
ReplyDeleteand it was just...really wrong...
and I think Val said it right. I ain't gonna stand anywhere and say outloud
"I support child pornography"
cause that's just dumb.
><
That's not a cooch, it's a leotard.
ReplyDeleteWait... so you really do want people jailed for their drawings? That's retarded.
ReplyDeleteMs. D'Orazio,
ReplyDeleteI didn't "begin" to respond to your point because I felt that others had articulated solid, focused arguments already, and felt that there was no point in re-wording what had already been said.
The "time" that it took me to "research" your sponsor was, literally, 90 seconds. It took me 90 seconds to find out that while you feel strongly about drawings of adults having sex with children, you apparently have no problem whatsoever being supported by a company that sells "Sexy Alice" and "Sexy Dorothy" outfits for REAL people to wear.
Remind me again, please, how old are Alice and Dorothy in their respective books?
If a drawing of children and adults having sex is offensive, then why is an adult (presumably) dressing as a child character for the purposes, in most cases, to create some sexual entertainment (just look at the costumes) fine and dandy? Why is it acceptable?
And you want me to say something, to make some "self-incriminating" statement? Well, ok then.
Yes, I feel that drawings of child pornography should be seen no differently than a book which portrays the same, or a drawing of murder, rape, theft, or anything else you can imagine.
Men and women alike, for instance, have rape fantasies. That doesn't mean that they support rape. It also doesn't mean that they should be jailed. What it means, and it's odd that this would have to be iterated at all, is that fantasy and reality are two entirely different realms.
As for Straw Man arguments, you, Ms. D'Orazio, are the one making them. No one is telling you that you must be against everything if you are against written or drawn portrayals of child pornography. What most people have been saying is that while it may be repulsive, there should be no legal ramifications.
It's art. It may be horrible art. It may have no value whatsoever culturally. But then, that's true of 99.999% of art produced. You have a problem with this particular sort of art. And that's absolutely your right. I personally hate torture porn movies, like "Saw." That's my right. But they absolutely have a right to make them.
And although I am loath to use a slippery slope argument, as they typically are fallacious, this is one case where it truly and accurately applies. Are depictions of murder or torture also to be deemed illegal, since they are also repulsive? Etc.
Anyways, that artwork (the Ross cover) has more problems than a flash of an 18 year-old Mary Marvel's panties. It's strong in some places, and weak in others, like a lot of Ross' work. It's why he infuriates me as an artist.
I just want to point out something so many people seem to miss. With the exception of Lost Girls, the books we are talking about here are marketed to kids and young adults. Yeah, maybe kids and young adults don't buy them anymore. Maybe it is only adult males that buy these things but let's be clear, the marketing is for a child and young adult audience. These are characters that were created for a child and young adult audience. A lot of adult males like Harry Potter too but if the next Harry Potter movie poster had an up-skirt Hermione shot... well, do I even have to go there?
ReplyDeleteShannon,
ReplyDeleteI am talking about illustrations made by adults for adults. Certainly, anything overtly sexual should never be marketed to kids. That was not the point of this debate. I
If anyone were to ever create a comic depicting sex between children or between children and adults, it should be totally illegal to market and/or sell such products to children. It has always been my assumption that such products were made by adults for adults.
Ms. D'Orazio, perhaps you would answer a side point even though you've said you're done with the conversation.
ReplyDeleteI don't get why you brought up the distinction between highbrow art (Moore's LOST GIRLS) and lowbrow art (SUPERGIRL).
Does that mean that high art has no power/tendency to encourage societally-dangerous thoughts?
Would you consider that Nabokov's LOLITA caused harm by putting a name to the underage fantasy?
If Moore had completed TWILIGHT OF THE SUPERHEROES, wherein siblings Billy and Mary Batson have sex (tho probably not as children), would that have been high art?
I was 14 when Cloak & Dagger #1 came out, and the issues hit me like a fist. I had never seen such raw depictions in comic books before that. I had never seen such raw writing from Bill Mantlo. I loved the Brigid O'Reilly character and was sad when she got turned into yet another person with superpowers (and a romantic interest for Cloak! wtf?)
ReplyDeleteThe Tylenol killer issue was amazing. Even if you're not going in the same direction, I hope you definitely remember those themes.
And thank you for reminding people. You didn't need to convince me, but thank you anyway.
Val,
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to say congratulations on taking a stance for something you believe in and I believe it is important for brave people to shed light on the darker aspects of our world.
I'm too lazy to read all the comments but has anybody nitpicked the fact that while Mary and Billy Batson are teenagers Mary Marvel and Captain Marvel are adults. It's a nerdy point but still a valid one. And Mary actually is more covered up than Isis, who is from a presumably Arabic and/or Islamic country. Did anybody complain about how the cover objectifies her?
ReplyDeleteI seriously don't see the problem with these covers, they're hot! Why is that bad?
ReplyDelete