Monday, March 01, 2010

More Man-Crotch Than You Will Ever See In One Comic

ComicMix presents...a Thomases/D'Orazio/Breyfogle production...Munden's Bar in "Good For The Goose."

I've always been a big fan of Norm Breyfogle's comic work, so I got a big kick out of working on this.

Yeah, that's me in the t-shirt.

Bonus question: what Marvel heroine did Martha Thomases co-create in the 1980s?


  1. This is what people making the argument "But men are objectified in comics, too!" need to see.

  2. Hellllllo Nightwing!

  3. I believe this is covered in copious amounts of what is known in the common vernacular as AWESOME SAUCE!

  4. Preach on sister, preach on. Sounds like the world is finally catching up with you and that can only be seen as a good thing.

  5. Martha Thomases: Dakota North?

  6. Bob Almond already guessed correctly but he used a question mark. Martha Thomases created and wrote five issues of Dakota North, drawn by the amazing Tony Salmons

  7. BREYFOGLE. Love 'im. Fun little comic here, and a point entertainingly made. I feel a little nostalgia for Powergirl and, say, Starfire, but acknowledge they should be more exceptions than rules.

  8. LOL! That is hilarious.

  9. Am I the only het-male comics reader on the planet who wouldn't care if male superheroes had prominent bulges in their spandex? I mean, I don't linger over those lovingly rendered pecs, either... I just get on with the reading.

    My wife has a theory that the majority of successful male celebs have (or think they have) big wangs... it gives them their swagger. Based on that, it would seem obvious that most male superheroes (except maybe Guy Gardner) would be packing heat.

    Of course, the elephant trunk in the room is that, while Carol Danvers' outfit might be able to bring all the boys to the yard, the Hulk's gamma-irradiated moose-knuckle would most likely send women screaming from it.

  10. Anonymous4:57 AM

    That is a big, saggy sack of cock.


  11. "This is what people making the argument "But men are objectified in comics, too!" need to see."

    I agree that their arguments are invalid, but so are these images as counterexamples. Female objectification in mainstream comics almost exclusively involves the depiction of secondary sexual characteristics - akin to showing off the male chest, hips, etc. (these are, in fact, typically the highlighted parts of female anatomy). Depictions of bulging male crotches, however, are representation of actual sexual organs, which are *not* generally depicted in objectifying images of females, despite the many opportunities for depiction that the usual poses offer. The images, as a result, are not equal and are not appropriate as counterexamples, only as satire.

  12. Well, I have to disagree with you, Greg. The point is taking a costume and using it not to protect but to emphasize sexual characteristics. Women's breast sizes may be secondary sexual characteristics, but they're the main thing you hear or read about when guys are talking about who they want to have sex with. It's almost as if the genitals are mere afterthoughts.

    But in the case of men, penis size is a huge factor in sexual appeal, or at least it seems to be when the bragging is going on and the pornos are being made. It may be a primary sexual characteristic, but it also functions at least in sex lore in a secondary characteristic way. Otherwise we wouldn't need all those articles claiming "Size doesn't matter!" to make the less gifted feel validated as well.

    I mean look at Ron Jeremy. Penis size and use is ALL that guy's got going for him and obviously it's been more than enough to serve. He didn't have to have some rock hard body, just a... well... you know.

    So I say it's the closest equivalent to a woman's secondary sexual characteristics. If men were to be objectified by their superhero costumes in the same way women are, emphasizing his schlong is going to be part of that. It doesn't have to be a direct one-to-one match because men and women are appreciated sexually for different reasons. So it only has to be a social programming one.

    The other point is, the costume itself actually makes him more vulnerable-appearing in much the same way most female superhero outfits do.

    And another thing is, it's just funny to have his junk leading like that. That's something that generally gets the fanboys freaked out as seen by that Alex Ross controversy a couple of years ago when he gave some character a slight bulge down there and the message boards went nuts.

    So once again, if fanboys think comics truly objectify male characters as aggressively in a sexual way they do female ones, they need to take a look at this and see what it'd really be like if they did.

    And yeah, male characters are objectified, but not sexually. Before this.