# Why Women Warriors are Scantily Clothed



## Michael K. Eidson (Jan 2, 2018)

Why there are so many scantily clad women warriors has all been explained, but I don't want to paraphrase. Best to go to the source.

Now You Know: Female Armor Explained [Comic]


----------



## pmmg (Jan 2, 2018)

Makes sense to me.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 2, 2018)

After two babies I can assure you this is legit.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Jan 2, 2018)

So the women who can't have those are screwed? Double entendre not intended.


----------



## pmmg (Jan 2, 2018)

You say that like its a bad thing...


----------



## Insolent Lad (Jan 3, 2018)

So why do we also have burly male barbarian warriors with their abs exposed?


----------



## rhd (Jan 3, 2018)

Insolent Lad said:


> So why do we also have burly male barbarian warriors with their abs exposed?


----------



## pmmg (Jan 3, 2018)

Cause the women want it that way. Female gaze and all that. Its really quite sad but its the world we live in....*le sigh*. Why are you trying ruin a good thing with your questions and facts? I dont mind being a little objectified.


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2018)

Insolent Lad said:


> So why do we also have burly male barbarian warriors with their abs exposed?



Because sex sells.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jan 3, 2018)

Insolent Lad said:


> So why do we also have burly male barbarian warriors with their abs exposed?


Abs of steel, baby.


----------



## skip.knox (Jan 3, 2018)

OK, amusing. But it made me think. Women are scantily clad in visuals. Not so much in novels. I would be embarrassed to describe a female warrior in such attire. It'd be downright salacious. And pointless.  Even in classic sword-and-sorcery books, where female clothing ranges from diaphanous to absent (looking at you, John Norman), and where the print covers are suggestive as all get-out, I'm hard pressed to think of passages where a female warrior is described the way they are regularly portrayed in comics and other visual media.

I'm not sure any of that is significant; merely a curiosity.


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2018)

skip.knox said:


> OK, amusing. But it made me think. Women are scantily clad in visuals. Not so much in novels. I would be embarrassed to describe a female warrior in such attire. It'd be downright salacious. And pointless.  Even in classic sword-and-sorcery books, where female clothing ranges from diaphanous to absent (looking at you, John Norman), and where the print covers are suggestive as all get-out, I'm hard pressed to think of passages where a female warrior is described the way they are regularly portrayed in comics and other visual media.
> 
> I'm not sure any of that is significant; merely a curiosity.



OMG John Norman, talk about a blast from the past.


----------



## Devor (Jan 3, 2018)

Russ said:


> Because sex sells.



...y'know, that's much less true than people think it is. But sex does sell romance novels, that much is true.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 3, 2018)

It’s about more than just clothing (or lack thereof) it’s about posing as well. I love this article on male super heroes in female poses....

Male Superheroes in Female Poses

Just try to look at them and say comic books aren’t about sex.


----------



## pmmg (Jan 3, 2018)

Wow, I thought I would never want to buy a spiderman again, but now I am not too sure...


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jan 3, 2018)

Heliotrope said:


> It’s about more than just clothing (or lack thereof) it’s about posing as well. I love this article on male super heroes in female poses....
> 
> Male Superheroes in Female Poses
> 
> Just try to look at them and say comic books aren’t about sex.


This reminded me of something that did the rounds a while back. There were several articles about it, but it seems this twitter thread is where it originated: Renae De Liz on Twitter


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2018)

Heliotrope said:


> It’s about more than just clothing (or lack thereof) it’s about posing as well. I love this article on male super heroes in female poses....
> 
> Male Superheroes in Female Poses
> 
> Just try to look at them and say comic books aren’t about sex.



Yup, the Hawkeye initiative had it right.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Jan 3, 2018)

I'm not against things being somewhat about sex per say do the nature of literotica, but those comic covers seemed ... a tad overkill.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Jan 3, 2018)

Heliotrope said:


> It’s about more than just clothing (or lack thereof) it’s about posing as well. I love this article on male super heroes in female poses....
> 
> Male Superheroes in Female Poses
> 
> Just try to look at them and say comic books aren’t about sex.



The male poses and outfits aren't done that way because they make both men and women laugh at them. The target audience doesn't laugh at the female characters in these poses and clothes, so the problem, if there is one, is ultimately with the readers, not the creators.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jan 3, 2018)

Heliotrope said:


> It’s about more than just clothing (or lack thereof) it’s about posing as well. I love this article on male super heroes in female poses....
> 
> Male Superheroes in Female Poses
> 
> Just try to look at them and say comic books aren’t about sex.



This is about my favorite thing on the internet lol. 

But seriously, the highly stylized armor that females are placed in just makes me cringe. (And some males too. Loincloths and et cetera.) Leave allllll those squishy organs exposed! I mean...the point of armor is...you know...to not die? 

Look up the differences in the amazons' armor in wonder woman vs. in justice league...designed by a woman vs. designed by a man. 

Btw, as someone in martial arts there is no way to look sexy while fighting. You are sweaty, heaving, making weird grimaces, your hair is a wreck and you smell horrible--and I'm not even splashing around in gore puddles.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jan 3, 2018)

i wish my uterus was glowy and granted immunity to arrows. mine is just stabbing me viciously in the gut right now


----------



## pmmg (Jan 3, 2018)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> i wish my uterus was glowy and granted immunity to arrows. mine is just stabbing me viciously in the gut right now



Maybe you are not using it right.  Try wearing less armor and showing off a little more midriff


----------



## rhd (Jan 4, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> The male poses and outfits aren't done that way because they make both men and women laugh at them. The target audience doesn't laugh at the female characters in these poses and clothes, so the problem, if there is one, is ultimately with the readers, not the creators.


Straight men might find it funny, women who are also fed on such imagery might find it funny, they're still parodied versions (and it is kinda funny). If you look at old homoerotic beefcake photos you'll realise there's an hierarchy involved and if the submissive/objectifying poses might make you feel uncomfortable then you might realize (not due to any form of homophobia) we're just so used to seeing women especially in mainstream western media looking like that, while they're doing everything from washing the dishes to walking the dog so sexy sexy sexy.  Women don't have to be sexualised all the time in every form of art, and that's the point being made, also calling out the ridiculous sexual empowerment nonsense when all they're actually is catering to some teen male gaze. I clearly recall reading my brother's comics as a twelve year old and being humiliated by the way women were shown, but also completely confused because I loved the art and the stories. I suggest watching John Berger's Ways of Seeing: Women, it might give you a fresh perspective. 
I hate to explain this when the actual point of the OP was a fun comic strip.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 4, 2018)

No one finds it funny, rhd. We get it. Which is why we are posting and criticizing it. But at the end of the day, you have to laugh at the ridiculousness.

Regarding Amazons, did you know that some believe the etymology of the word was a - mazos, which in greek meant "one breast"? They think they cut a boob off so they could aim better with arrows.

No one shows that in comics because seventeen year old boys like their women with two boobs. And because boobs are also bullet proof. Obviously.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 4, 2018)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> i wish my uterus was glowy and granted immunity to arrows. mine is just stabbing me viciously in the gut right now



Give yourself twenty years and two babies. You'll wish you could bronze it and put in on your mantle.


----------



## rhd (Jan 4, 2018)

Heliotrope said:


> No one finds it funny, rhd. We get it. Which is why we are posting and criticizing it. But at the end of the day, you have to laugh at the ridiculousness.
> 
> Regarding Amazons, did you know that some believe the etymology of the word was a - mazos, which in greek meant "one breast"? They think they cut a boob off so they could aim better with arrows.
> 
> No one shows that in comics because seventeen year old boys like their women with two boobs. And because boobs are also bullet proof. Obviously.



I was referring to the hawkeye initiative which annoying kid was referring to.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Jan 4, 2018)

rhd said:


> Straight men might find it funny, women who are also fed on such imagery might find it funny, they're still parodied versions (and it is kinda funny). If you look at old homoerotic beefcake photos you'll realise there's an hierarchy involved and if the submissive/objectifying poses might make you feel uncomfortable then you might realize (not due to any form of homophobia) we're just so used to seeing women especially in mainstream western media looking like that, while they're doing everything from washing the dishes to walking the dog so sexy sexy sexy.  Women don't have to be sexualised all the time in every form of art, and that's the point being made, also calling out the ridiculous sexual empowerment nonsense when all they're actually is catering to some teen male gaze. I clearly recall reading my brother's comics as a twelve year old and being humiliated by the way women were shown, but also completely confused because I loved the art and the stories. I suggest watching John Berger's Ways of Seeing: Women, it might give you a fresh perspective.
> I hate to explain this when the actual point of the OP was a fun comic strip.



It is just a fun comic strip. It's not biting criticism because the Hawkeye Initiative style criticism is based on the idea that men in these poses and outfits are comical and absurd, and thus in theory allowing the men who view it to evaluate the poses and outfits with their heterosexuality taken out of the equation. Thus concluding the poses and outfits are comical and this persists when they see women in these poses again. Causing a change in perspective and a shift in paradigm. 

The reason this doesn't work is because culture tells us _all the time_ that men in submissive poses and scantily clad outfits are a source of comedy and absurdity. While simultaneously promoting women in the same poses and outfits as sexually glamourized. So people are used to holding those two propositions as true at the same time without cognitive dissonance. So all this style of criticism does, is perpetuate the idea that men who engage in submissiveness are figures to be laughed at.


----------



## pmmg (Jan 4, 2018)

Heliotrope said:


> And because boobs are also bullet proof. Obviously.



I think boobs might be the most powerful force in the universe.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Jan 4, 2018)

Thing is if you have a woman warrior wear armour for practicality, the question then comes why is her face exposed, why aint she wearin it like this; http://c8.alamy.com/comp/A7WBKW/wea...late-armour-for-archduke-sigismung-A7WBKW.jpg

The answer is it can get confusing if enemies are being practical and wearing plate as well and people want to see the character emote. So that's already making concessions based on what the audience wants to see. Any creator who makes those concessions isn't arguing from a strong position regarding the practicality of other characters.


----------



## Russ (Jan 4, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> Thing is if you have a woman warrior wear armour for practicality, the question then comes why is her face exposed, why aint she wearin it like this; http://c8.alamy.com/comp/A7WBKW/wea...late-armour-for-archduke-sigismung-A7WBKW.jpg
> 
> The answer is it can get confusing if enemies are being practical and wearing plate as well and people want to see the character emote. So that's already making concessions based on what the audience wants to see. Any creator who makes those concessions isn't arguing from a strong position regarding the practicality of other characters.



I trust you would concede there is a slight difference between going visor up, or no helmet for the purpose of recognizing a character or seeing them emote  and basically having female characters dress like  modern strippers for the purpose of titillating male consumers?   

And that whole get confusing thing, is why armour like that was worn with a surcoat with heraldry on it, when it wasn't be using in a parade, but that is a different topic.


----------



## pmmg (Jan 4, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> Thing is if you have a woman warrior wear armour for practicality, the question then comes why is her face exposed, why aint she wearin it like this; http://c8.alamy.com/comp/A7WBKW/wea...late-armour-for-archduke-sigismung-A7WBKW.jpg



Well, those shoes are a little pointy, and it would be hard to accessorize, but...

I suppose, deep down inside, I am too willing to make concessions. Helmets go on and helmets come off. I don't have a chainmail bikini in the story, but if I thought it would make sense... Are we sure that wonder woman's armor would not really protect?


----------



## Annoyingkid (Jan 4, 2018)

Russ said:


> I trust you would concede there is a slight difference between going visor up, or no helmet for the purpose of recognizing a character or seeing them emote  and basically having female characters dress like  modern strippers for the purpose of titillating male consumers?
> 
> And that whole get confusing thing, is why armour like that was worn with a surcoat with heraldry on it, when it wasn't be using in a parade, but that is a different topic.



 In visual media, to see the character emote effectively,  the entire face needs to be seen from more than one angle and distance, it typically requires minimal head protection. Visual media doesn't have paragraphs of description, so the ability to emote is vital. So much so that Ironman has a little in helmet camera for the audience to see. But this doesn't work with traditional armours as the inside of the helm wouldn't be bright enough. 

That difference lies in arguments against sexualization and gender bias. If we are just talking practicality, the principle is the same. Someone would be right to ask why one concession to the audience at the expense of practicality is okay and the other is not. 

Heraldry works when theres only two people in a fight. If we're talking more than two, it can still get confusing.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jan 5, 2018)

> Are we sure that wonder woman's armor would not really protect?



http://i.imgur.com/2oWwPZV.jpg


----------



## Russ (Jan 5, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> That difference lies in arguments against sexualization and gender bias. If we are just talking practicality, the principle is the same. Someone would be right to ask why one concession to the audience at the expense of practicality is okay and the other is not.
> 
> Heraldry works when theres only two people in a fight. If we're talking more than two, it can still get confusing.



The discussion has never been just about practicality.

Heraldry works with thousands and thousands of people in a battle.  And it worked effectively that way for centuries.  That is how all those real people wearing real helmets fighting real battles did it.

IF you think about it, facial recognition on the battlefield would be far less effective than heraldry, even if nobody wore helmets.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Jan 5, 2018)

Russ said:


> The discussion has never been just about practicality.
> 
> Heraldry works with thousands and thousands of people in a battle.  And it worked effectively that way for centuries.  That is how all those real people wearing real helmets fighting real battles did it.
> 
> IF you think about it, facial recognition on the battlefield would be far less effective than heraldry, even if nobody wore helmets.



Other soldiers in a battle don't need to empathise with other soldiers the way an audience needs to empathise with characters. Nor are audiences trained to keep track of heraldry. http://theminiaturespage.com/polls/pics/fan/jan03/1256541669a.jpg Try picking out a character in this mess. 
The practicality argument is non sequitr to the real issue, that of sexism in different standards of sex appeal for males and females.  The practicality argument is founded on an elitist and wrongheaded idea that more historically accurate inherently = better. Nightwing faces gunfire with his entire head exposed and it works fine. Nobody complains.


----------



## Russ (Jan 5, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> Other soldiers in a battle don't need to empathise with other soldiers the way an audience needs to empathise with characters. Nor are audiences trained to keep track of heraldry.
> The practicality argument is non sequitr to the real issue, that of sexism in different standards of sex appeal for males and females.  The practicality argument is founded on an elitist and wrongheaded idea that more historically accurate inherently = better.



Firstly, not everything is a comic book or visual medium.  You should consider that from time to time.

Secondly the practicality issue is an underpinning of the sexism argument.  It is not in this context a separate argument.  The obvious impracticality of much female armour in fiction (visual and otherwise) is *evidence* that supports the *conclusion *that the use of said armour is sexist.  Simple enough isn't it?

I have not seen anyone suggest that historically accurate is inherently better.  Is that just your straw man or did I miss someone here suggesting that?  I do believe that audiences today are more rational and demanding than prior generations, but that is a different story.

And you do agree with me that your suggestion that heraldry is ineffective when used on more than two people was simply unfounded right?  Or are you sticking with that one?


----------



## Annoyingkid (Jan 5, 2018)

Russ said:


> Firstly, not everything is a comic book or visual medium.  You should consider that from time to time.
> 
> Secondly the practicality issue is an underpinning of the sexism argument.  It is not in this context a separate argument.  The obvious impracticality of much female armour in fiction (visual and otherwise) is *evidence* that supports the *conclusion *that the use of said armour is sexist.  Simple enough isn't it?
> 
> ...



You should consider that the OP used a comic book in his original post and was obviously talking about characters in comics and visual media.

Practicality is not the underpinning of the sexism argument. The male gaze and versatility in female portrayal is the underpinning. The idea that men get to be more than just sexy in visual design and poses.
Again, when a male character faces gunfire or weapons with their entire head exposed and without armour, nobody cares.
When a woman does it, feminists lose their minds,

 "historically accurate is inherently better." doesn't have to be said outright, because that is the argument being made when one inherently places practicality over stylization,

And no, I don't agree with you about heraldry. I probably could not keep track of one character in this sea of colour. http://theminiaturespage.com/polls/pics/fan/jan03/1256541669a.jpg


----------



## Russ (Jan 5, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> And no, I don't agree with you about heraldry. I probably could not keep track of one character in this sea of colour. http://theminiaturespage.com/polls/pics/fan/jan03/1256541669a.jpg



Than perhaps  you could explain how hundreds of thousands of people, did it for centuries?   Including up to the modern era, when we started calling them uniforms.
QUOTE="Annoyingkid, post: 281093, member: 4784"]
Again, when a male character faces gunfire or weapons with their entire head exposed and without armour, nobody cares.
When a woman does it, feminists lose their minds,
[/QUOTE]

It appears you have missed the entire point, perhaps intentionally misstating the concern.

The concern is that while men (with or without helmets) are portrayed in ways that depict them as more than just sexual objects, that women are much more often portrayed in ways that depict  them as just sexual objects.  The concern is that women are treated in a way that treats them more as objects and dehumanizes them.

And feminists don't "lose their minds"  about these things, they are concerned or troubled by them and speak up about it.  Your attempt to portray their concern as irrational is a sexist and bullying  attempt to silence people with a concern.  You may wish to consider more civil language when discussing important issues.  Tossing around insults at groups rarely moves a dialogue forward and really reflects quite badly on you.  I could respond in kind, but out of respect for the decorum of this place, won't.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Jan 5, 2018)

Russ said:


> Than perhaps  you could explain how hundreds of thousands of people, did it for centuries?   Including up to the modern era, when we started calling them uniforms.
> QUOTE="Annoyingkid, post: 281093, member: 4784"]
> Again, when a male character faces gunfire or weapons with their entire head exposed and without armour, nobody cares.
> When a woman does it, feminists lose their minds,



*Than perhaps you could explain how hundreds of thousands of people, did it for centuries? *
 Audiences need to be able to pick out individual characters, and empathize with them. Historically, battles were regimental. Picking out the identity of individuals wasn't important. As long as one could tell friend from foe and tell what regiment each belonged to, they were fine.

*
The concern is that while men (with or without helmets) are portrayed in ways that depict them as more than just sexual objects, that women are much more often portrayed in ways that depict  them as just sexual objects.  The concern is that women are treated in a way that treats them more as objects and dehumanizes them.*
"More often" are the operative words. The issue is one of diversity, not practicality. There is nothing inherently wrong with the impractical in fiction.

*And feminists don't "lose their minds" about these things, they are concerned or troubled by them and speak up about it. Your attempt to portray their concern as irrational is a sexist and bullying attempt to silence people with a concern. You may wish to consider more civil language when discussing important issues. Tossing around insults at groups rarely moves a dialogue forward and really reflects quite badly on you. I could respond in kind, but out of respect for the decorum of this place, won't.*

You say feminists don't lose their minds... while posting a hilariously butthurt tone policing rant.

When Aragorn marches helmless on the black gate, nobody cares. When Nightwing, Green Arrow,  Conan, Rambo and more fight with vital parts exposed nobody cares. These characters are no more or less practical than the sexualized female ones. The difference is that their impracticality is used to convey more than sex appeal, they typically communicate strength and authority. The sexualized portrayal is not in itself a problem, the imbalance is. But that reflects the standards in all of western culture.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 5, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> You say feminists don't lose their minds... while posting a hilariously butthurt tone policing rant.








If you can't discuss without personal attacks, please excuse yourself from the thread.


----------



## Tom (Jan 5, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> When Aragorn marches helmless on the black gate, nobody cares. When Nightwing, Green Arrow,  Conan, Rambo and more fight with vital parts exposed nobody cares. These characters are no more or less practical than the sexualized female ones. The difference is that their impracticality is used to convey more than sex appeal, they typically communicate strength and authority. The sexualized portrayal is not in itself a problem, the imbalance is. But that reflects the standards in all of western culture.



In Aragorn's case it's not a show of power but instead an old and very common filmmakers' trick. Helmets obscure the face and make it hard to read the expression, which is essential to a character's connection to the audience in a highly visual media like film. So the character either goes into battle helmet-free or loses it sometime during the fight, usually before a key moment involving a lot of emotion. An example of this would be Eowyn removing her helmet before killing the Witch-King--this not only reveals her gender, but also clears our view of her face so we can see her expression when she kills him.

The rest of these are male power fantasies. They're meant to serve as a self-insert for the men watching them. There's a big difference between a male character created by a man for other men to see themselves as, and a female character created by a man for other men to see as a sexual object.


----------



## Chessie2 (Jan 5, 2018)

This same question is what I ask myself when I see waxed man chests all over the place. Not my preference and it makes me laugh, same way the Forsworn females in Skyrim made me laugh. WHY?! Because other people like it and it sells. Shrugs.

The first time I laid eyes on a female Forsworn I laughed so hard along with Marcurio's comment, "They don't even have the decency to dress right." I know! Here, let me shove my sword into that bare middle you're showing me.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 5, 2018)

Tom said:


> The rest of these are male power fantasies. They're meant to serve as a self-insert for the men watching them. There's a big difference between a male character created by a man for other men to see themselves as, and a female character created by a man for other men to see as a sexual object.



So much this. This nails it.


----------



## pmmg (Jan 5, 2018)

Tom said:


> The rest of these are male power fantasies.



I think if you study this more, you will find these also slide into depictions of female power fantasies. But they are all fantasies. Superman, with all of his muscles rippling through his spandex is every bit as much a fantasy as wonder woman and her not exactly all covering armor. Neither one of them is real. They both exist in a world of lets just pretend this could really work out. They are just trying to sell comic books, and eye candy is a part of it. More power to them.

If I was to move over to the anime world, I see plenty of equally objectified women, and many of the males are either androgynous or effeminate. They have an audience too, and its not really the same one as Marvel and DC.

You know, I think we can all live in a world where some stories put the helmets on, and some stories call Red Sonja just too bad ass to beat. Sometimes, liberties are taken, and it works out better that way.

And yes, I think we are all aware that not having helmets, or piecemeal armor really would not cut it for wannabe heroes jumping into battles. And battles were not really about individuals killing all foes and emerging victories amid the smoking ruin of fallen comrades, but a bunch of somebodies with team or individual colors on pounding it out for one side or another. But I'm not writing about them. It may not be real, but I can still believe in Wonder Woman, and Batgirl, even Hawkeye too (well not Hawkeye, who would bring a bow to a gun fight?).

I say keep going Red, your uterus is more powerful than anything I've written, and an awesome uterus it is.


----------



## Tom (Jan 5, 2018)

pmmg said:


> I think if you study this more, you will find these also slide into depictions of female power fantasies. But they are all fantasies. Superman, with all of his muscles rippling through his spandex is every bit as much a fantasy as wonder woman and her not exactly all covering armor. Neither one of them is real. They both exist in a world of lets just pretend this could really work out. They are just trying to sell comic books, and eye candy is a part of it. More power to them.



This isn't taking into account the fact that Wonder Woman was originally concieved as a bondage fantasy by a male creator. That's very much a character intended to be a sex object. Over the years she's evolved into her own complex character, but that doesn't change her creator's original intent.

Yes, female power fantasies can be sexual, and yes, eye candy is not always bad. But I think it should be remembered when discussing this stuff that a lot of the media we consume is/was made by male creators for what was until recently a majority male audience.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 5, 2018)

pmmg said:


> I think if you study this more, you will find these also slide into depictions of female power fantasies. But they are all fantasies. Superman, with all of his muscles rippling through his spandex is every bit as much a fantasy as wonder woman and her not exactly all covering armor. Neither one of them is real. They both exist in a world of lets just pretend this could really work out. They are just trying to sell comic books, and eye candy is a part of it. More power to them.
> 
> If I was to move over to the anime world, I see plenty of equally objectified women, and many of the males are either androgynous or effeminate. They have an audience too, and its not really the same one as Marvel and DC.
> 
> ...



It’s true, and I’m not suggesting that all women in fantasy comics or fiction need to be rewritten. I can admit that for myself of course sometimes I want to put myself in the female power fantasy that I’m badass, but also smoking hot. Look at me defeat these barbarians while still having sexy tousled hair and a cute butt. Love me  

My original intention of posting the Hawkeye theory stuff what to say “if you don’t think the point of comics is to sell sex, then perhaos give your head a bit of a shake.” It is basically a child’s first access to legal pornography.


----------



## Russ (Jan 5, 2018)

I also think the nature of the audience is important to any discussion of this subject. What adults get from a comic book or magazine is one thing.  

But we do need to at least think and talk about what comics and depicting women in certain ways is teaching to the young women and men of our society.  Is it healthy?  Is good for them as individuals or for us as a society?  Is that really all we have to offer for young women to be fictional role models?

(As an aside I started reading the original Heavy Metal magazine way too young.  Now that was some seriously misogynistic and unhealthy  stuff.)


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 5, 2018)

Russ said:


> (As an aside I started reading the original Heavy Metal magazine way too young. Now that was some seriously misogynistic and unhealthy stuff.)



My dad struggled to let me read Archie because he hated that all Betty and Veronica cared about was getting Archie. He didn't want me to think that getting a boy was all I needed in life.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jan 5, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> When Aragorn marches helmless on the black gate, nobody cares. When Nightwing, Green Arrow, Conan, Rambo and more fight with vital parts exposed nobody cares.



My wife makes fun of these portrayals all the time, so much that I can't enjoy watching them if she's in the room. I'm willing to ignore it for the sake of watching a movie. But both of us laugh when a dozen guys with automatic rifles come on the screen and can't hit a person running across a yard with no cover. The other thing we laugh about is when a person falls dead, and there's someone standing right behind them, only revealed when the dead person falls. Where the hell did they come from? They just pop into existence, without a sound, no matter how heavily clad they are.

It is more of a problem typically in the visual medium. In the printed medium, you as the reader can at least imagine a reason behind how these fantastical events might somewhat realistically occur. When they put it on the screen and remove any possible explanation for how it might happen, it becomes laughable.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 5, 2018)

Or how cool guys never look at explosions and don't bat an eye about all the dead people they just created?


----------



## Tom (Jan 5, 2018)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> But both of us laugh when a dozen guys with automatic rifles come on the screen and can't hit a person running across a yard with no cover.



There's a scene exactly like this in Captain America: Winter Soldier and I laugh so hard every time. He's running with his shield covering his upper body but NO ONE thought to shoot his legs, apparently!


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jan 5, 2018)

Heliotrope said:


> Give yourself twenty years and two babies. You'll wish you could bronze it and put in on your mantle.



Well, that'd make for an interesting conversation piece.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jan 5, 2018)

Tom said:


> There's a scene exactly like this in Captain America: Winter Soldier and I laugh so hard every time. He's running with his shield covering his upper body but NO ONE thought to shoot his legs, apparently!



There's an identical scene in Wonder Woman, but that scene was so cool that i kinda ignore it


----------



## ThinkerX (Jan 5, 2018)

Heliotrope said:


> Or how cool guys never look at explosions and don't bat an eye about all the dead people they just created?



...not bat an eye at the dead people they just created...

I wrestled with that for quite a while.  Get right down to it, the words for that type of guy is 'stone cold killer.'   Stems back to a conversation from my AD&D days, about Kobolds and experience points (EP's).  EP wise, Kobolds are not worth much - maybe five each.  It normally takes thousands of EP's to advance in level.  Buddy of mine runs though the numbers and goes, 'man, you'd have to kill like an entire tribe just to make 3rd.'  My thoughts turned to the psychological effects of that much mayhem.  A person with that many deaths weighing on him, I decided, would be either an amoral killer or a psychological wreck.  That became one of the dominant themes in my writing: characters who have stared into the abyss, survived, and now have to cope with the aftermath.

(apologies for the derailment)


----------



## pmmg (Jan 6, 2018)

Tom said:


> This isn't taking into account the fact that Wonder Woman was originally conceived as a bondage fantasy by a male creator.


 
Well, I thought it did, but you are free to think otherwise.



Heliotrope said:


> Look at me defeat these barbarians while still having sexy tousled hair and a cute butt. Love me



Of Course, Helio, what's not to love about you?



Heliotrope said:


> “if you don’t think the point of comics is to sell sex, then perhaps give your head a bit of a shake.” It is basically a child’s first access to legal pornography.



Have you seen the internet recently?

Actually, I don't think comics are out to sell sex, they are out to sell comics. That they provide what could be considered a soft anatomy lesson in some (many) panels does not hurt with that, I am sure. But they are also selling a lot more than that. Stories about heroes, doing what's right, wrestling with grey issues, trying to show many other aspects of character relationships…I could go on. Comics are just the modern versions of old world mythologies, and they serve, at times, to teach the same types of life lessons.



Russ said:


> I also think the nature of the audience is important to any discussion of this subject. What adults get from a comic book or magazine is one thing.



I can't argue with that. Heck, there were many things I was exposed to as a child that just did not register, and when I saw it again as an adult, I was like, Wow, I had no idea there was so much of this lewd stuff going on. Guess I was just naive and my brain then did not see it. As an adult, I watched many things that had innuendo and references that I know my kids did not grasp, but I was able to appreciate. If only I could go back and do it all over again.




Russ said:


> (As an aside I started reading the original Heavy Metal magazine way too young. Now that was some seriously misogynistic and unhealthy stuff.)



I did not have a lot of exposure to Heavy Metal, I saw some issues of it. It was certainly more free with depicting more graphic material, and it may have been unhealthy in many regards, but I am not sure I would have called it misogynistic. That word gets thrown around a lot, I am not sure it always really applies.




Russ said:


> But we do need to at least think and talk about what comics and depicting women in certain ways is teaching to the young women and men of our society. Is it healthy? Is good for them as individuals or for us as a society? Is that really all we have to offer for young women to be fictional role models?



Well, here we are.

There are many things I don’t like in our culture, and sometimes, Marvel and DC rise to that level, but I find most of Marvel and DC's stuff harmless. Skimpy outfits and idealized iconic specimens, I am sure we are all resilient enough to survive a media outlet or two that relies heavily on them. To say that they would be 'all' we have to offer is just not correct. It is just a part the whole, and the experiences of any contain so many myriad of things that help to shape them, that there will never be just one that could a representative of all. I was more influenced by Adam West and Luke Skywalker than anything I've ever read in a comic. And by the time I was aware that 'Wow, these women have shapely bits I might like to see more of, Playboy was already a thing".  

We may, through some great effort, convince Marvel or DC to put more clothes on that, but outlets for this will always exist, and probably always have. Sex sells, but you know what, people like sex. And people like sex in many different forms. I don’t see that ever changing.

Women are not made less powerful because of what Wonder Woman is wearing today, or how someone chose to pose her. Their power is inherent in their very being. There to be asserted or diminished as they find best to use it. But it can never be taken away. The female will always be a powerful equal to the male. Just not with the same tools.


----------



## pmmg (Jan 6, 2018)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> There's an identical scene in Wonder Woman, but that scene was so cool that i kinda ignore it



More recent depictions of wonder woman, and certainly the move version, have her as being impervious to bullets, so she really did not need the shield. Capt America...well, there are a lot of things Super heroes do that make me think that would not be likely, but...



ThinkerX said:


> http://i.imgur.com/2oWwPZV.jpg


----------



## Dark Squiggle (Jan 7, 2018)

Heliotrope said:


> Or how cool guys never look at explosions and don't bat an eye about all the dead people they just created?


If they look back they'll turn into pillars of salt, or their lover they're saving from Hell will be forced to go back. How could you possibly infer that they should look back?


----------

