# Hot...or not. Cover-art article



## lawrence (Jan 18, 2013)

Came across this : BBC News - The battle against 'sexist' sci-fi and fantasy book covers on the BBC site today. 

Quite an interesting piece. I have to confess being a fan of the way females are often portrayed in fantasy art and online games. As a male it's hard to resist the appeal of a beautiful elf dressed rather less conservatively than Galadriel. I do recognise that it is 'unreal' and even a tad silly (going into combat in a mithril-plate bikini doesn't seem that wise. Lots of bare skin in between the protected bits!) 

But still, isn't part of the appeal of fantasy the element of striking visual beauty, be it drawn in landscapes, cities, or the male and female forms? Also, the focus in the article is the female depictions. But men are equally portrayed as eye candy on covers. For example, the Conan covers featured alot of masculine flesh alongside the scantily-clad girls. That said, I think there is alot of room for heroes that are more than mighty of arm. Aragorn leaves Conan in the dust imo. Anyway...have a read of the article.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Jan 18, 2013)

Oh!  You beat me to it!  I was gonna post this one lol  On an interesting note, I think this is also the guy who got into the "pose off" with John Scalzi a while back.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin (Jan 18, 2013)

I'd argue that a Conan cover with him in a loincloth and a woman in an armor bikini is not sexist, as they're both wearing revealing/unrealistic clothing.  

We DO often see covers which show the males in something that looks like it make sense, more or less, and females in attire that simply doesn't.


That said, the "sexy woman on the cover" bit isn't always about attracting men. For example, lots of romance genre novels have a scantily or partially clad woman. That's not to attract men - that's to attract women. Likewise, the scantily clad woman on the cover of a lot of urban fantasy isn't targeted at male readers - it's targeted at female readers, mostly.

"Sexy women" on a cover is a win-win for the publisher because it works for both men AND women. Men are attracted to the sex appeal of an attractive female image; women's eyes are attracted as part of the wish fulfillment role fantasy fiction plays for many readers.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 18, 2013)

One thing that's always bothered me with the idea of "realistic" is that the idea of everyone in full plate isn't exactly realistic either. The cost of plate is incredible and if it doesn't fit right (read: not custom made/adjusted), then you probably have openings and are much less able in battle. 

In a poor world without a concept of "proper decency", it makes sense for poor characters to be naked. If some level of decency is a concern for poor people, then they would wear the minimum, which would be something along the lines of a loincloth or bikini (outside of battle). Granted, if you have the money, then you should dress for the occasion, but the number of people that can do that are very rare. On the other hand, if you are a famous person, then you probably have some level of ornamental armor. In real life, we have ridiculous ornamental armor for males that is not something anyone in their right mind would wear into battle; on the other hand, we don't have many examples of warrior females in real life, so they never really got much ornamental armor. In a fantasy land (depending on the mores of that land), it makes sense for females to have ornamental armor of the sort found with chainmail bikinis and even more ostentatious examples. For something gladiatorial, then it would make sense to dress the gladiators in armor of that sort for the effect and not care about the effectiveness.


----------



## lawrence (Jan 19, 2013)

oops sorry Aelowan 

Interesting thoughts. Just shows that its not black and white, and that its not just about male readers wanting pin-ups populating the realms of fantasy writing.


----------



## Alexandra (Jan 19, 2013)

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> "Sexy women" on a cover is a win-win for the publisher because it works for both men AND women. Men are attracted to the sex appeal of an attractive female image; women's eyes are attracted as part of the wish fulfillment role fantasy fiction plays for many readers.



Is it truly a win-win? From the article: "According to 2012 data from publishing industry analysts Codex Group, less overtly explicit covers in fact have a wider appeal among general readers. Codex Chief Executive Officer Peter Hildick-Smith remains puzzled why science fiction and fantasy publishers sell sexualised covers.

'My guess is that it has simply evolved as category convention, allowing book buyers to instantly know that a given book is in one of their preferred categories,' he said."

In other words, tis an old habit and old habits die hard.


----------



## Devor (Jan 19, 2013)

Alexandra said:


> Is it truly a win-win? From the article: "According to 2012 data from publishing industry analysts Codex Group, less overtly explicit covers in fact have a wider appeal among general readers. Codex Chief Executive Officer Peter Hildick-Smith remains puzzled why science fiction and fantasy publishers sell sexualised covers.



Marketers and business men and, I would say, fantasy authors tend to be from an age group, gender and background which would be attracted to sexy, edgy messages.  But those aren't the people who buy the most products or read the most books.  It's a problem that's well-known and well-documented and spreads cross-industry.  The creatives and the messengers just aren't in the same group as the people they're trying to talk to.  Their edgy and sexy ideas go wrong a lot.




Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> That said, the "sexy woman on the cover" bit isn't always about attracting men. For example, lots of romance genre novels have a scantily or partially clad woman. That's not to attract men - that's to attract women. Likewise, the scantily clad woman on the cover of a lot of urban fantasy isn't targeted at male readers - it's targeted at female readers, mostly.
> 
> "Sexy women" on a cover is a win-win for the publisher because it works for both men AND women. Men are attracted to the sex appeal of an attractive female image; women's eyes are attracted as part of the wish fulfillment role fantasy fiction plays for many readers.



I mostly enjoy your comments, Kevin, but I think this one stands as an exception to that.  First, it would be a mistake to equate Romance readers with Fantasy readers, and to then assume that the messaging which works in Romance would (or should) work in Fantasy.  They're not, they're entirely different brands appealing to readers in entirely different ways.

And second, it would be a mistake - and kind of an offensive one, I would think - to assume that women readers are just a homogeneous block of people who want to dream about being sexy.  I'm not really inclined to make a big deal about the ethics of sex appeal, but that's just not true.

Take a look at the covers of fantasy books which were actually written for women and the absence of overt sex appeal speaks volumes.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 19, 2013)

Devor said:


> I mostly enjoy your comments, Kevin, but I think this one stands as an exception to that.  First, it would be a mistake to equate Romance readers with Fantasy readers, and to then assume that the messaging which works in Romance would (or should) work in Fantasy.  They're not, they're entirely different brands appealing to readers in entirely different ways.
> 
> And second, it would be a mistake - and kind of an offensive one, I would think - to assume that women readers are just a homogeneous block of people who want to dream about being sexy.  I'm not really inclined to make a big deal about the ethics of sex appeal, but that's just not true.
> 
> Take a look at the covers of fantasy books which were actually written for women and the absence of overt sex appeal speaks volumes.



I don't agree with everything that he said, specifically the idea of "wish-fulfillment", but it is documented that women appreciate both male and female images. Getting away from the romance genre, look at, oh I don't know, every magazine ever. Women's magazines have women on the covers, men's magazines generally have women on the covers. The women's magazines would not have women on the cover if their departments didn't say that having women on the covers works. 

I think maybe this is in line with the point he was trying to make. 

Now, I don't think that women are always going to want their images in skimpy outfits!

One area I've never looked into or heard of is the idea of photographs versus constructed artwork. I've always assumed that men are perfectly fine lusting after a drawn image of a woman (for instance, Lara Croft, Tifa Lockheart or Batgirl), but women are less likely to do this unless the character is portrayed by a real-life actor (for instance, Christian Bale as Batman, not Batman). Is this an area anyone's read research on? 
(Disclaimer: Obviously I am not saying "all women" or "all men" do this. I am asking about trends.)


----------



## Alexandra (Jan 20, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> Getting away from the romance genre, look at, oh I don't know, every magazine ever. Women's magazines have women on the covers, men's magazines generally have women on the covers. The women's magazines would not have women on the cover if their departments didn't say that having women on the covers works....



Women's magazines do not always have women on their covers, at least not in Canada. Homemaking/cooking and interior styling/home decorating magazines, generally regarded as women's magazines, often have no one on their covers. Fashion and beauty magazines that rely heavily on advertising from the respective industries always have young attractive women on their covers because these types of magazines consider themselves to be aspirational (_Vogue_ is a prime example of this train of thought); even a middle-aged out-of-shape writer such as myself can aspire to be just as youthful looking and attractive as the teenagers or pop culture celebrities on the covers of fashion magazines if I bought all the beauty products and wore the trendy clothes. Tis ridiculous, but makes many other middle-aged out-of-shape business people bags of money.

Fantasy writers and publishers of fantasy do not have to worry about such nonsense. They know, or should know, that their readers are not aspiring to be warrior princesses, sexy sorceresses, or Tinker Bells and therefore tis not necessary to try to seduce readers into buying their products with juicy covers. I still think tis just a habit perpetuated by what is, at its heart, a conservative industry resistant to change.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 20, 2013)

Hi,

I have a horrible feeling we're overthinking this. In marketing one of the first things that people should do is know their audience, and the audience for sci fi and fantasy generally begins as teenage boys. Obviously this is a sweeping generalisation, but my thought is that its really that simple. If you want to sell say a book or a magazine, and you know that a large chunk of your audience are teenage boys, you create covers that attract them - i.e. scantily clad women mixed with robots and spaceships and werewolves and whatever else. (Boys are far more visual than girls).

Then, as they get older maybe the artwork isn't so important, and maybe the writing and the ideas are more important, but its like smoking - hook em young and keep em coming back.

And though I hate to point out the obvious (too often) one of the interesting things is that the market has grown, and now includes teenage girls. Anyone want to guess what the shorts of the Twilight series are about? Why the actors are all pretty boys who seem to be allergic to shirts? Basically its selling to teenage girls. Interestingly the book covers aren't, but there are plenty of other books in the genre that are.

Is this sexist? Does it degrade the genre? Don't know. But does it sell? Yes. And that in the end is what counts.

And in terms of the article, why are people fighting it. My thought is that a cover can only do so much to attract an audience. It's the writing that will keep it.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Alexandra (Jan 20, 2013)

psychotick said:


> I have a horrible feeling we're overthinking this.... Cheers, Greg.



Yes I agree, but isn't that often the nature of forum discussions?


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 20, 2013)

See one of the most recent cover re-imaginings at Jim Hines' site:

Jim C. Hines Â» Group Cover Pose Reveal!


----------



## Devor (Jan 20, 2013)

psychotick said:


> I have a horrible feeling we're overthinking this. In marketing one of the first things that people should do is know their audience, and the audience for sci fi and fantasy generally begins as teenage boys. Obviously this is a sweeping generalisation. . . .



Sweeping . . . . and untrue.  I couldn't find a demographics breakdown, but if a book is geared towards children, it's usually classified as _Young Adult_ and doesn't even appear in the Fantasy section of the bookstore.


----------



## lawrence (Jan 21, 2013)

That's a pretty amusing alternative cover shot, steerpike!

I put my hands up and say that if I am scanning over books or magazines (any genre) my attention will be caught by a beautiful female depicted therein. It doesn't mean I am looking for books illustrated in that way, but inevitably it is an effective way of giving me pause to at least consider reading the strap-line and blurb. I am equally likely to notice any other kind of striking artwork, from inanimate still-life compositions to dramatic design/logo renderings. If the tone, colours, images etc all conspire well enough together I will most probably take notice of their 'hey come over here' whisperings. I am highly visual, loving art as much as the written word. Millions of people are just the same.

The Old Testament has a fascinating account of mighty beings (generally understood to be angels but its a point of debate) that were so enamoured of the beauty of the daughters of men that they gave up their positions in the heavenly realm to take human wives here. 

We might prefer that our literature be packaged differently, we might aspire to be less like moths drawn to flame, but the appeal of the human form is an ancient and deeply ingrained fact, and therefore a powerful marketing tool.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 21, 2013)

Hi Devor,

I did some googling and found some demographics for sci fi readers. (old article) I'll post the link because I don't really want to cut and paste a whole chapter, and hope I don't get in any troble with the mods.

Albert I. Berger Science-Fiction Fans in Socio-Economic Perspective: Factors in the Social Consciousness of a Genre

As you can see from these, the traditional demographic for sci fi has been male, and starting reader age, young, early teens and younger.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 21, 2013)

Is anyone attracted to specific cover artists? For instance, I can recognize Luis Royo's artwork and it always catches my eye. That might not translate to a sale, but it at least gets me to pick up a book and read the back cover.


----------



## Devor (Jan 21, 2013)

psychotick said:


> As you can see from these, the traditional demographic for sci fi has been male, and starting reader age, young, early teens and younger.



Thank you for pulling data.  But quite a lot has changed since 1977 when this was written, and Science Fiction is not Fantasy.  Among other things, fantasy can be less technical and more approachable to women, modern fantasy trends darker and older, and the whole genre has grown a lot from recent titles that have gone mainstream or else were successful cross-medium, since fantasy stories have actually become filmable.

Your target market, of course, doesn't have to be every fantasy reader out there, but you'd be smart to at least consider the recent trends in what people are reading.


----------



## lawrence (Jan 22, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> Is anyone attracted to specific cover artists? For instance, I can recognize Luis Royo's artwork and it always catches my eye. That might not translate to a sale, but it at least gets me to pick up a book and read the back cover.



Can't say I am familiar with particular artists, though I came across Justin Sweet a while back, he has some great work. I looked up Luis Royo's covers, amazing detail and light, if a little too raunchy for my taste


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 22, 2013)

lawrence said:


> Can't say I am familiar with particular artists, though I came across Justin Sweet a while back, he has some great work. I looked up Luis Royo's covers, amazing detail and light, if a little too raunchy for my taste



A lot of his covers are not as "raunchy" as his artwork.


----------



## Jamber (Jan 22, 2013)

Alexandra said:


> In other words, tis an old habit and old habits die hard.



I agree wholeheartedly with Alexandra's point.

For writers who _want_ to appeal to a basically male (heterosexual) audience, the sexualised female on the cover probably does what it should.

But for writers who want cross-gender or female appeal, it would make sense _not_ to assume a male (and heterosexual) gaze. The trouble is we're all used to the tradition, I suppose...

I can say for myself I don't go past sexualised females on covers all that often, unless there's a whole lot else happening. I do make an exception (when need be) though: Terry Pratchett, because he's so wonderfully humanist.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin (Jan 23, 2013)

If that were true, Jamber, it would not explain why so many woman-targeted romance and urban fantasy novels have a woman on the front cover. Generally in risquÃ© clothing.

Thing is, publishers spend a good deal of money learning what covers work for different target groups. So if they are slapping sexy pictures of women on the covers of woman-targeted fantasy books, it's because those covers sell well to women.

Notice however: the woman targeted covers are sexy and *strong*, not some negligee-clad woman clinging to Conan's leg. Much like male targeted covers have some sort of wish fulfillment, so do these covers.


----------



## Nihal (Jan 29, 2013)

Kevin got it right, at least for me. I don't get _that_ bothered by half-naked women as I get by a female "protagonist" who exists just to walk around being sexy and to be the damsel in distress, so the hero can save her and show off how kickass he is. It's even worse when the author tries to paint the female warrior as a powerful warrior, she's know as a powerful warrior by everyone in story but her actions just don't reflect it, she's nothing more than a useless crybaby who needs to be rescued, when not too busy being sexy.

I guess this is a quite personal view. Revealing armors are stupid, ok. Sometimes they're pretty too and I must confess pretty things appeal to me, not in a sexual way, just because they're pretty. Bare skin don't offend me, maybe because I live in a tropical country and while we don't walk around naked you still get to see bikinis, shirtless men and such - cmon, sometimes we have a Mordor weather here + beaches! What offends me are shallow characters created just only to appeal and actually break the story flow, slaping you right out of the immersive mood.

Lately I've reading a book where the heroine is kinda like this. They present her as a beautiful, clever and spirited young woman, but I only saw her acting spirited when it would place her even in more danger so she can be conveniently be rescued by the heroes party. Seriously?


----------



## lawrence (Jan 30, 2013)

Nihal said:


> - cmon, sometimes we have a Mordor weather here + beaches! What offends me are shallow characters created just only to appeal and actually break the story flow, slaping you right out of the immersive mood.
> 
> Lately I've reading a book where the heroine is kinda like this. They present her as a beautiful, clever and spirited young woman, but I only saw her acting spirited when it would place her even in more danger so she can be conveniently be rescued by the heroes party. Seriously?



 'Mordor weather' ...made me smile.

Yes, overt manipulation of a character is sure to cause that breaking of the story spell, makes you feel ripped off. You glimpse the puppet strings. I guess it's a similar principle when it comes to cover art. A bit of subtlety wouldn't go amiss.


----------



## Nihal (Jan 30, 2013)

Yup. My point is: Annoying? Yes. But we'll survive. It's how those scantly clad characters are employed that can really scare me off.

A bad cover art, for example, can be a turn off too (since I'm design and illustration oriented it's a _big_ one for me). But I've read books with awful covers, it usually takes some extra pushing as a friend's recommendation or already knowing the author's work.


As a female this issue doesn't enrage me as some people guess it would, it just looks *silly*. Female warriors who are constantly portrayed as helpless offend me. When you put more thought on on her armor than her behaviour it's a sign to stop, you're overthinking the issue.

And while it's silly, bare skin is appealing for me the same way a cool hair is, it's not that I'm sexually attracted to it nor I want to be those characters, as some people speculated, but because it's beautiful. So are lizards and bugs!

Now, about males showing skin being sexy... It's more a personal taste, but I like a little mystery, haha. A disarrayed and open shirt can be sexy, but so are armors, they speak of power and of a fighter.
When I stumble upon a character being described as a greek good with exploding muscles, his bare chest covered with sweat I must admit that I... I... I laugh out loud, it can't be helped! I imagine him flexing his muscles and pouting while he tries to be sexy, it's so stereotypical, hilarious! I'm not into the Connan trend, also my personal taste disagrees with all the overly muscled steaming hot male culture.

This Mordor weather thing appeared during some bad heat waves. The running joke was "Oh, Rio de Janeiro has a mountain climate... *Mordor*.". Technically incorrect but awesome haha.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Jan 31, 2013)

Nihal said:


> Revealing armors are stupid, ok. Sometimes they're pretty too and I must confess *pretty things appeal to me*, not in a sexual way, *just because they're pretty.* Bare skin don't offend me…


Okay, this would explain a lot.

I have daughters, and they love mermaids and fairies who are basically beautiful young women who wear bikini tops or tiny dresses. I've also drawn a few female protagonists who tend to show a bit of skin but in a way that's meant to be cute, not sexy. I've noticed that my female characters tend to be appealing to my daughters, my wife, the science teacher in the classroom next to mine (a woman), a woman on DA that I used to play Monster Hunter with (who drew fan art of my characters in their undies), and some women from this forum.

It was a little confusing at first, like I'm getting away with something. The characters are appealing to me, but also to women. What have I done? Your words explain it perfectly.






Oh… and none of those girls I drew are damsels in distress by any means.

Especially this one:




who is described in the quote below.


----------



## saellys (Feb 9, 2013)

Jamber said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with Alexandra's point.
> 
> For writers who _want_ to appeal to a basically male (heterosexual) audience, the sexualised female on the cover probably does what it should.
> 
> But for writers who want cross-gender or female appeal, it would make sense _not_ to assume a male (and heterosexual) gaze. The trouble is we're all used to the tradition, I suppose...



We know it works, so we keep on doing it, regardless of the potentially harmful things it normalizes and perpetuates. 

Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to appeal exclusively to a heterosexual male audience when they know there are other options. But then, I am not a heterosexual male.



Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> If that were true, Jamber, it would not explain why so many woman-targeted romance and urban fantasy novels have a woman on the front cover. Generally in risquÃ© clothing.
> 
> Thing is, publishers spend a good deal of money learning what covers work for different target groups. So if they are slapping sexy pictures of women on the covers of woman-targeted fantasy books, it's because those covers sell well to women.
> 
> Notice however: the woman targeted covers are sexy and *strong*, not some negligee-clad woman clinging to Conan's leg. Much like male targeted covers have some sort of wish fulfillment, so do these covers.



Woman appear on the covers of romance and urban fantasy novels because they're often the main characters. (In my admittedly limited experience, urban fantasy has the highest concentration of female protagonists in literature today.) RisquÃ© clothing gets tossed in because the publisher hopes to attract male readers if possible, and/or because women have been thoroughly indoctrinated to objectify themselves the same way men do. The male gaze is everywhere. 

I have yet to figure out exactly what male readers (and film viewers) really mean when they say a female character is strong. I have heard it applied to literally everything from "She carries a gun!" to "She didn't sleep with the male protagonist!" and "She has a rape-revenge story arc!" I've seen comic book artists justify their female characters wearing practically nothing by saying they're "strong" and "empowered" and "confident". My strength and empowerment and confidence do not add up to sexy poses or clothing, and I would much rather see female characters written and portrayed with the same depth and thought and compelling arcs as male characters than to be told, time and again, that a female character is "strong" for some arbitrary reason.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 10, 2013)

Speaking to definitions, to my mind, if a character chooses to exercise their will in spite of difficulties–be they cultural, physical, disabilities, or whatever–then they are a "strong" character. 

In my mind, this would apply to male or female characters. But I think that most people might think of "strong female" characters as those that have a will to exercise at all. This is a little disconcerting if true. Maybe it speaks to the idea that we are so used to women being portrayed as accompaniments that when they appear to have a mind of their own, we call them "strong". 

Not sure if I made the point or not in an earlier post, but going back to the cover question. I don't think having "sexy" women on covers is a sexist at all, so long as there's a good reason for them to be sexy and on the cover. If it's contrived to get them into the outfit, then it could be sexist (depending on the contrivance), and if it is doesn't belong on the cover then it could be sexist (or just marketing via sex appeal). I disagree with the idea presented that "it's not sexist if it doesn't look absurd for a man to do the same pose/outfit". Speaking from personal experience, I'm not offended at all when a man is portrayed "sexily" for use in marketing.


----------



## saellys (Feb 11, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> Speaking to definitions, to my mind, if a character chooses to exercise their will in spite of difficulties—be they cultural, physical, disabilities, or whatever—then they are a "strong" character.
> 
> In my mind, this would apply to male or female characters. But I think that most people might think of "strong female" characters as those that have a will to exercise at all. This is a little disconcerting if true. Maybe it speaks to the idea that we are so used to women being portrayed as accompaniments that when they appear to have a mind of their own, we call them "strong".



You hit the nail on the head. 



Zero Angel said:


> Not sure if I made the point or not in an earlier post, but going back to the cover question. I don't think having "sexy" women on covers is a sexist at all, so long as there's a good reason for them to be sexy and on the cover. If it's contrived to get them into the outfit, then it could be sexist (depending on the contrivance), and if it is doesn't belong on the cover then it could be sexist (or just marketing via sex appeal).



What exactly, in your opinion, would be a good reason for a female character to be sexy and on the cover? 

One of my husband's co-workers loaned us _Fanboys_ a few months ago. I got as far as the menu screen before deciding that it wasn't my cup of tea, but what fascinated me was the difference between the front and back covers. The cast is on the back cover hanging out by the van in which they have all their adventures, and the lone female character, played by Kristen Bell, is wearing a cute sweater and jeans, her hair styled normally, a girl-next-door smile on her face. 

On the front cover, she's wearing Leia's metal bikini from _Return of the Jedi_, and her pose and expression is on the tame side of seductive. There are many layers of problems happening here; the cover is meant as an homage to the original _Star Wars_ trilogy posters, which often sexualized/subordinated Princess Leia, so thematically it "makes sense," but it is nevertheless clearly an excuse to get Kristen Bell in a state of undress in the hopes of boosting ticket and DVD sales. 



Zero Angel said:


> I disagree with the idea presented that "it's not sexist if it doesn't look absurd for a man to do the same pose/outfit". Speaking from personal experience, I'm not offended at all when a man is portrayed "sexily" for use in marketing.



It's pretty rare to come across men portrayed sexily (as in actually sexily, and not just a male power fantasy--the difference has been discussed over in the other sexism thread) for use in marketing. The most recent example I've encountered was a photoshoot with Tom Hiddleston in a bathtub, which didn't _quite_ compare with the levels of objectification, contorted poses, and abbreviated clothing that happen to female models all the time. The "it happens to men too!" argument gets brought up a lot in these situations, but the sad fact is that it really doesn't, not even remotely on a comparable scale.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 11, 2013)

saellys said:


> What exactly, in your opinion, would be a good reason for a female character to be sexy and on the cover?



Because she wanted to be? Sometimes people like to show off. If there is a relatively main character that enjoys showing off, then it would be sexist to *not* include them on the cover on the grounds that they should be more demure for our sensibilities. It would also misrepresent the character.

Then there are characters, perhaps from primitive tribes, where the females don't wear tops. I'd say it is sexist to say they can't be on the cover unless they cover up when we have no problem throwing a guy in a loincloth. Not because it happens to men too, but because those women are choosing to dress that way. 



saellys said:


> One of my husband's co-workers loaned us _Fanboys_ a few months ago. I got as far as the menu screen before deciding that it wasn't my cup of tea, but what fascinated me was the difference between the front and back covers. The cast is on the back cover hanging out by the van in which they have all their adventures, and the lone female character, played by Kristen Bell, is wearing a cute sweater and jeans, her hair styled normally, a girl-next-door smile on her face.
> 
> On the front cover, she's wearing Leia's metal bikini from _Return of the Jedi_, and her pose and expression is on the tame side of seductive. There are many layers of problems happening here; the cover is meant as an homage to the original _Star Wars_ trilogy posters, which often sexualized/subordinated Princess Leia, so thematically it "makes sense," but it is nevertheless clearly an excuse to get Kristen Bell in a state of undress in the hopes of boosting ticket and DVD sales.


 That's surprising! I watched it on TV and I don't remember her even being in that outfit. In fact, she had that geek look throughout the movie which was a nice change. Still, the movie on the whole was the cliche "don't see what's in front of you because you're a moron" story.

I can understand the homage, but I don't think it accurately represented the movie so I can see people saying that is sexist also. Unless Kristen Bell begged to do it, in which case, it would be sexist to not let her as one of the stars in the movie do something related to the movie that can serve as marketing—although I still don't think that should be the cover, maybe a viral campaign or something.



saellys said:


> It's pretty rare to come across men portrayed sexily (as in actually sexily, and not just a male power fantasy--the difference has been discussed over in the other sexism thread) for use in marketing. The most recent example I've encountered was a photoshoot with Tom Hiddleston in a bathtub, which didn't _quite_ compare with the levels of objectification, contorted poses, and abbreviated clothing that happen to female models all the time. The "it happens to men too!" argument gets brought up a lot in these situations, but the sad fact is that it really doesn't, not even remotely on a comparable scale.



Yes it is rare, and I think that speaks to the culture of America. There are a lot of guys that will not pick up something with a sexy picture of a guy unless it says "Men's Fitness". I wasn't making an "It happens to men too" argument, I was saying I as a man do not care if it did happen to men.


----------



## saellys (Feb 14, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> I wasn't making an "It happens to men too" argument, I was saying I as a man do not care if it did happen to men.



Gotcha. As a woman, I do care when it happens to women.


----------



## Devor (Feb 17, 2013)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...31842380212018&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf

((edit))

Sorry, was in a hurry.  I saw this picture on Facebook and it seemed relevant.  I would link directly but I don't know if there's copyright issues.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 18, 2013)

Devor said:


> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...31842380212018&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf



Please reference links so we know you weren't taken over by a robot 

Her armor was no worse than the armor worn by the celts or by the Dahomey warrior women. All I'm saying is that it *can* make sense—it probably doesn't usually.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin (Feb 19, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> Please reference links so we know you weren't taken over by a robot
> 
> Her armor was no worse than the armor worn by the celts or by the Dahomey warrior women. All I'm saying is that it *can* make sense—it probably doesn't usually.



*cough* The celts are credited with the invention of mail armor in Europe. Yes, there is documentation of cases where some of them went into battle without anything on, but they were better armed and armored than they're often given credit for, at least as far as can be told by the archaeological record.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 19, 2013)

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> *cough* The celts are credited with the invention of mail armor in Europe. Yes, there is documentation of cases where some of them went into battle without anything on, but they were better armed and armored than they're often given credit for, at least as far as can be told by the archaeological record.



This is a bit besides the point though? I'm not talking about them throughout their entire history. And accounts state that even when some went into battle naked, there were others that went in armed. One account said some might wear a plate over their chest or similar while others went in naked. A lot of this is believed to be a psychological thing (freak out your enemies), but none of this hurts my point: it has happened. 

In fiction, it is also a common tradition in mythology: the hero goes into battle naked I mean. It is reasonable that a pious individual would test themselves with costume armor or nudity in battle.

There are examples of people going into battle naked, there are examples of armor for men that were useless outside of a parade; it is logical that if women took a larger part in battle (read: were allowed to / accepted alongside men), then they would also develop "dress armor" that was more for show than utilitarian and that a hapless person would find themselves wearing said armor in a battle situation. 

Peasants frequently went into battle with barely more than quilted armor and if you look at tropical/hot areas, there is a lot of evidence of people fighting battle while still having a good portion of their bodies exposed. 

In a fantasy situation, which is about as close to mythology as we get anymore, it is reasonable to expect individuals to test themselves or believe themselves invulnerable. Also, there is usually magick, and that can be a game changer as well. Going D&D route for a quick example, if a person can cast mage armor on themselves and get the same benefit as if they were wearing a full suit of chain mail, then they can easily fight in their underwear and be as protected as everyone else. Then it boils down to what do they *want* to wear, not what they feel compelled to wear. Also, there is something horrifying about someone relatively unarmored killing armored men and women and not flinching at their weapons. 

I'm not saying it's wise or that it should be portrayed as common as it is sometimes argued that it is in fantasy, but I am arguing that it *can* be reasonable and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin (Feb 20, 2013)

Was sort of messing with you, in a mock "how dare you besmirch my ancestors" sort of way. Thus the smiley. 

/textmediumfail

Oh well.


----------



## lawrence (Feb 23, 2013)

Very relevant pic, Devor! I have to confess that part of my reaction was; Nooooo!...the beautiful elf is all ruined! 

Would it have seemed so awful a tragedy if she were not so 'attractive'? In a thoughtful reflection, yes, of course, gorgeous elf warriors are no more valuable than kindly old peasant women that have the faces and bodies of half-trolls.

But the immediate reaction, before my higher conscience has time to kick in...oh my, I am so shallow!

And I guess that little insight into human nature is why publishers will continue to use the hot cover girl to try for that all important prolonged glance over their book.


----------

