A little rambling thought

« Being "Healthy" | Struggling with my Desire to Avoid Breeding »

A little rambling thought

by BrokenPorcelainDoll @ 05. Oct 2007 – 23:01:52

DISCLAIMER TO TROLLS
The entry below is intended as an exercise in mental rambling only. I do not think we should remove sex from comics. I am happy for there to be sex in comics and my only wish with regards to altering this is to provide more variety for those of us who like something other than the standard model. Comments on "don't take the sexy away" will be replaced with "wee wee wee" noises and smilies. Debate I am interested in. Utterly failing to actually read my comments and then ranting away I am not.

Okay, so I've had a couple of posts now, regarding sexiness in comics, and the comments that I received got me to thinking. When people defend the sexiness, what justification could they provide that sex and titillation needs to be in so many comics, anyway?

One of the arguments used against including a wider variety of sexiness in comics that I've come across was "just because there is a market for it, doesn't mean it should be catered for". My understanding is that this refers either to immoral acts being catered for or to a market of interest that is so small it doesn't justify production just for that market.

But this can also be used against the presence of sex, generally, in comics.

Sex in comics is nice. Everyone enjoys eye candy. But how many people buy comics just for the sex, or even mainly for the sex? How many people, if given the choice between a poor artist who draws lots of boobs and an excellent artist who draws less boob, or no boob, would choose the artist with the most boobs? How many people, given the choice between a deep, involving and moving plot, written competently, and a mediocre plot filled with sex, would choose the mediocre plot?

How many people will sit through a poor run of a comic, because the art in it is pants-wettingly gorgeous? And how many people will sit through a poor run of a comic, because Wondie gets her knockers out once an issue and rubs her arse up against Batman's thigh?

There are people for whom sex is the priority, but these people already have access to far better and more dedicated sources of sex. If it is, specifically, cartoon or comic sex that the person is interested in, there are dozens of publications, websites, fansites and so on that cater specifically to graphic novels, cartoons and comics that are, in fact, pornographic, or erotica. There is even comic porn specifically making use of famous characters, for those who specifically have a crush on one character.

Shit, there's even porn for people who want cartoon dragons having sex with cars!

If you want a skin magazine, why would you go out and buy a Batman comic?

How many people buy an X-men comic just in the off-chance that they might get to see Storm's nipple?

Now, I have to admit, as I was typing this, I immediately started thinking that the only people who would do this are those who are unable to obtain access to actual pornographic items. Namely, those who are underage. But this is an oversimplification, and plays into the whole "comics are wankmags for spotty preteen boys" idiocy.

Nevertheless, whilst I accept that there are almost certainly adults out there who buy DC or Marvel comics primarily for pornographic use, or general titillation, I suspect that these people are very much in the minority of comics fans.

I'll even go right out on a limb here and say that there may be fewer hairy-palmed comics readers than there are female comics readers. If this is true, then comics producers could, at the loss of a small minority of readers, improve sales in a larger proportion of readers. A net gain for them, overall.

And if we are going to insist on having sex in comics, why insist on limiting it only to sex for white, straight men who specifically enjoy mainstream porn and find mainstream porn actresses attractive? Why say "you can't take the porn away, but you can't have any porn for you, either. My porn! All mine!", when more variety of porn could just mean more porn overall, not less porn for you.

If anyone can provide me with an actual, concrete, good reason for sex to be kept in comics generally, I would really love to read it.

Extra points if you can show why specifically only women should be shown as sexualised in comics. Extra arsehat points if you can prove that implied rape, racism and sexism are an essential part of sex in comics. (But seriously, ignoring these last sentences, I really would like to hear a good reason for keeping sex in comics).
Options:
Tags:
- sex
- comics
- entertainment
- feminism
- just for fun
- geekery

12 Comments to A little rambling thought

Hide subcomments

- Lexi D (Visitor)
- 06. Oct 2007 @ 12:26:06
I have asked that question over and over again of many different fanboys of the "oh noes their trying to take away our sexxxy!!" variety, and never have I gotten an answer.

The problem is (and credit for this statement goes to Alan Moore) sex in comics does not make comics "mature" if the sex is handled immaturely. And it all too often is.

Grest post
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- Scott Anderson (Visitor)
- http://360.yahoo.com/my_profile-NYapGagiRKXkibx6bHvcaBbV36Q-?cq=1
- 06. Oct 2007 @ 14:49:55
That is a remarkably easy question to answer. The only difficult thing about answering this would be trying to narrow down the reasons or to make the response broad enough to cover all the reasons. Let's try these two:

1. The people creating the comics wanted sex in them.

2. Some of the people buying the comic wanted sex in it.

Does it need to be anything other than that? Or how about this:

Most of the most successful adventure franchises (e.g. Star Trek, James Bond) have had sex in them, so it seems to help sell the product. Pulp fantasy material has had sex in it from the beginning and comics are pulp fantasy materials.

Or I could quote you when you said this:

“Sex in comics is nice. Everyone enjoys eye candy.”

Ta daaaaaaa! That why it’s in there.

Of course, it doesn’t have to be in there anymore than any other element. We could ditch the violence, the capes, the secret IDs, the super powers. All of that could go. Hell, the comics them selves aren’t necessary. The “needs to be in comics” argument doesn’t make any sense because no one is arguing that sex needs to be comics or even there needs to be comics. The reason for sex in comics is that someone wanted to produce the comic with sex in it and someone wanted to buy it.
- - BrokenPorcelainDoll
  - 06. Oct 2007 @ 20:46:19
  Most of the successful franchises do, indeed, have sex in them. But how often? Star Trek doesn't exactly have all that much sex, from what I recall of the series I watched. I mean, there was romance around the place (Data and his lady, Diana and Will, Worf and Dax...) but very little sex. I don't recall much nudity, apart from one episode of The Next Generation, where you didn't see anything, anyway. Even in the romance scenes, I don't recall seeing much beyond "they kiss and... fade to black" and, whilst the uniforms may be form-fitting, they're not exactly revealing or even particularly rtight. It's a far cry from comic covers that are just a picture of a woman's arse.
  
  A fair number of extremely successful franchises don't have sex in them. Like The Simpsons. Oh, they have the odd tongue-in-cheek bit in there, but not enough to make a person who was primarily interested in sexy cartoons keep watching. Despite that, The Simpsons has been going for... well over 10 years, now.
  
  Star Wars was also a hugely successful franchise. And while there was some flirting, and one sexy bikini scene, the female lead spent the vast, vast majority of the films in a baggy, white, full-covering outfit.
  
  Aside from the iconic aspect of that scene in Star Wars, I think the sex in most of the above mentioned wouldn't be missed by many if it was removed, as it occurred so arely.
  
  Successful franchises do often have sex in. But how much of the success is due to the sex, and how much to good editing, witty dialogue, appropriate plot points for the characters, an interesting premise, and the fact that these franchises have something in them to appeal to most people?
  
  For example, as sci-fi series go, Lexx has far more sex in it than Star Trek or Star Wars. So why isn't it an internationally reknowned series with a string of movies and action figures you can buy on the highstreet?
  
  Because, even as someone who quite enjoys the odd episode of Lexx, I can say without a doubt that the premise is daft, the characters are incredibly 2-dimensional, the plot is ridiculous, the "science" defies even the most enthusiastic suspense of relief, and the sexy scenes are really not appealing unless you like plastic, porno-style women and don't mind ugly men.
  
  Just because sex is supposed to sell product, doesn't mean it has to be used to push profit, especially when there are other means at your disposal. And just because some people want sex in comics, doesn't mean that all, or should I say most, comics need to have it in.
  
  Some good points there, though. I'm enjoying this debate. I'm having to use my brain, which is nice for a change!
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- Ford MF (Visitor)
- http://fordmadoxfraud.livejournal.com
- 06. Oct 2007 @ 16:51:16
Wait. Did that guy just say that sex "seems" to sell a product? Was that irony or sarcasm or something? If so, it's so deadpan I can't even tell. Dude, putting sex in ANYTHING makes it sell better. Case closed.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- Ami Angelwings (Visitor)
- http://ami-angelwings.blogspot.com
- 06. Oct 2007 @ 20:59:32
My experience with teen boys (and it's sadly vast, since I hung out with a lot of them in highschool >_>) is that when they can't get their hands on pr0n, they will eagerly grab nething that can give them some titillation (wrestling with it's "divas", comic books, manga, softcore at 3am, etc) and share it amongst themselves, or go to their room sekritly and do stuff >_>;;

So I think that definitely plays to it :\
- - BrokenPorcelainDoll
  - 06. Oct 2007 @ 22:03:31
  True, but these days porn is a lot easier to come by. Even my dad has porn bloopers on his phone, and bluetooth doesn't, as far as I know, come with age protection.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- Scott Anderson (Visitor)
- http://360.yahoo.com/my_profile-NYapGagiRKXkibx6bHvcaBbV36Q-?cq=1
- 07. Oct 2007 @ 05:40:50
How about if we go at it from this angle then:

What other aspect of comics would you say "needs" to be in comics?

If you are going to suggest that sex is on a "needs" basis, are you going to use that same criteria for any other aspect of comics? I couldn't argue that sex needs to be in comics because it doesn't. Nothing needs to be in comics. We don't even need comics. We like comics. We want comics. "Like" and "want" are the reason for comics and they are the reasons for what is in comics.
- - BrokenPorcelainDoll
  - 07. Oct 2007 @ 09:08:07
  Well, when I'm saying "want" or "need" here I'm referring not to an ultimate need, but to "comics need x in order to be good/enjoyable/successful".
  
  So you're right- with all the costume switches, depowering and history retconns- capes, secret IDs and super powers don't need to be in comics. Batman has no superpowers. Black Canary lost her canary cry. Robin has no powers.
  
  Sometimes, the best stories can be about an ordinary person who fights against all odds, or about a recently de-powered hero coming to terms with their new status, and learning how to fight without the ability to fly/turn invisible/crush rocks between their arsecheeks.
  
  Not having a secret ID would make for a possibly good story- how a hero deals with the fact that everyone knows who he/she is, the likelihood of people abusing this knowledge to call upon the hero overmuch (see one episode of the Powerpuff Girls, where they decide to let the townspeople try to handle things alone, tired of being called out constantly).
  
  And capes, whilst adding a certain amount of drama to costumes, aren't needed for many heroes. In fact, not many heroes have capes. Batman has one, but it can be used atmospherically in comics, plus the fact that, being non-powered, anything that conceals his silhouette, making him a harder target to hit, is a good thing. Superman, on the other hand, has no need for his cape, and I imagine it catches awkwardly in the wind when he's flying.
  
  Violence, however, is often necessary. Conflicts can be determined without violence, but taking out all violent conflict restricts storytelling. And conflict is an important part of any story.
  
  ***
  
  But lets go to your point about "want" and "like" being the reason for what is in comics. That's just fine. But not everyone wants or likes the sort of sexualised content we are being given at the moment. How many people read a comics not for the sex, but despite the sex, because the dialogue/action/art/plot is worth it? Some people do like sex in their comics, and these people should be catered for. Some people don't like sex in comics, and these people should also be catered for. Sexy comics could quite easily be treated as a niche market, in much the way that "comics for girls" are now.
  
  And, to preempt a possible argument, the phrase "if you don't like it, don't buy it" is not really useful here. I do like comics. Even people who don't like the sexy aspect enjoy comics, just not that one bit. And many people are turned away by the sexualised content, and stick to indie titles, or just never get around to picking up a comic in the first place. But my understanding is that mainstream comics are struggling a little at the moment. Profits are down, sales are down. By addressing what we don't like and what could change, we are trying to help comics, by opening them up to a wider market.
  - - Scott Anderson (Visitor)
    - 07. Oct 2007 @ 16:54:42
    Compared to the Golden Age and even the silver age, you are correct that profits are down. But compared to the Golden Age, there may be less sex in comics than there is now. Let's not forget that Phantom Lady and the Black Canary are products of the Golden Age.
    
    But your argument now seems to suggest that there is sex in all comics and not sex in some and not in others so that the people who like it can have it and those who don't will have something they like too.
    
    Here are some comics I read that I don't think are really sexy:
    
    Capt. America, The Hulk, Daredevil, Booster Gold, Wonder Woman, Suicide Squad, The Atom, all of the Marvel Adventures series (of which I think there are 4 series???), Deadpool & Cable, Fantastic Four, Ultimate Fantastic Four, MODOK's 11, Midnighter, Annihilation: Conquest -- Starlord, : Conquest -- Wraith, New Avengers, The Order, Thunderbolts, The Four Horsemen, Countdown to Adventure, New Warriors, JSA, JSA Classified, JLA, JLA Classified, Infinity Inc., Shadowpact, Thor, Supergirl & the Legion of Super-Heroes, The Immortal Iron Fist, Avengers: The Initiative.
    
    There may be others and I'm guessing that someone could take exception to some of the choices above, but for the most part, I don't see those books are anywhere close to being really sexy. Many have some kind of romantic involvement for some of the characters but they are pretty low on the sex. I didn't include some books like The She-Hulk that might have sexy covers but don't really have sexy stories.
    
    If you were actually to make a list of all comics and divide them into sexy and non-sexy, do you really think the scale would be tilt so very far to the sexy side?
    - - BrokenPorcelainDoll
      - 08. Oct 2007 @ 19:23:19
      Well, there's that list I did for you on 2nd Sept for a start...
      
      And that's a list produced using only the covers, using only obvious sexual imagery and ignoring some of the more subtle ones, and a list produced by someone who, these days, reads a lot more indie comics and generally buys mainstream ones much more rarely than she used to.
      
      Perhaps, to help with this, I could define my idea of sexual imagery?
      
      1- poses which the human body cannot comfortably do, which show of buttocks/breasts/genitals (except where the character has a particularly bendy or elasticated body as part of their powers)
      
      2- when the bottom half of clothing is so high-cut that the edges of the crotch are visible (that diagonal line connecting thighs to vagina) see also: thongs
      
      3- when the clothing is so skintight that a covered stomach still has a visible belly button.
      
      4- when breasts defy gravity, or are uncovered/mostly uncovered but still behave as though the woman is wearing a wonderbra. For example, when the bottom portion of the breast is exposed, but the breasts are still pert and upright.
      
      5- when the clothing covering the breasts actually only covers the nipples, or when so much breast flesh is exposed that the nipple, although invisible, must be on sideways.
      
      6- When the character's body is so thin that their breasts are wider than their waist.
      
      7- Porn faces when the scene isn't supposed to be a sexy one
      
      8- When a female character in bare-feet or flats is, nevertheless, standing poised on tip-toes to show off their legs (wobbly and not comfortable for most people)
      
      9- When a supposedly early-teens character has the body of an adult woman, or when a supposedly middle-aged woman has the body of a twenty year old
      
      10- When supposedly covering or modest clothing is drawn in such a way as to emphasize sexual body parts (see Dust and her occasionally Morticia-style dress)
      
      A comic may not be overtly sexual or pornographic in nature, but if it has these aspects to it then it does contain sex.
      
      ...
      
      Not to derail the conversation or anything, but why do people call you a Troll, Scott? You don't seem like one.
      - Scott Anderson (Visitor)
        
        11. Oct 2007 @ 18:53:38
        
        Do you see those things in the comics I listed?
        
        While I would pretty much agree with you about those things being sexual, some of it seems to be the "idealized body" (like the pert breast thing) and I'm not sure we are going to get away from the idealized body or the idea that the “idealized body” is what the artist thinks of as the “sexiest body.” BTW, do we see male navels in costumes? I don’t recall seeing them, but I don’t recall not seeing them either.
        
        As for the troll thing, I think it is mainly a knee-jerk reaction that lumps people who question or disagree with real trolls. And I do much prefer to talk to people about issues who might disagree with me. I think I learn more and think more when I discuss things with those people than I do with the people who agree with me. I like to be challenged, and I guess I assume others do too, but some people take my challenging their ideas as pricking with him, and I’ll have to admit there are some calculated barbs in the things I write. Plus there are times that I'm really spoiling for a fight, which might sometimes make me a troll. Sometimes people say things that I think are outrageously insulting about some comic pro or reader who is a stranger to the speaker, and I’ll defend that insulted person in a way that suggests (sometimes quite strongly) that the person making the accusation is him/herself being the unethical one. There is something about calling someone some despicable name based on the slightest of evidence that sets my teeth on edge, so I jump in and ramble on and on about how terrible it is to say this or that, which is annoying, especially when the people who make the mean-spirited remark think of themselves as doing something ethical. They think they are defending the rights and freedoms of some group by calling someone else something terrible. Anyway, it is not uncommon for people who initially dismiss me to come around and think I’m an OK guy with a different point of view. And my favorite people are often the people most exasperated with me.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        BrokenPorcelainDoll
        
        11. Oct 2007 @ 22:39:51
        
        Oh, pert breasts I don't mind. I'm talking about breasts that seem to be almost horizontal on top. Shelf-boobs. Now, I do get those if I wear a push-up bra or corset (and with my chest that's something of a health hazard) and my kittens seem to find it very useful for sleeping and/or trying to get higher up... but seeing that on a female character that happens to be wearing no bra, or clothing hat isn't really supportive, goes beyond idealised beauty.
        
        That's my opinion, anyway. And you're right, I don't recall specifically seeing those things in your own comics list.
        
        I'm not sure about male navels either- I'll have to check that one out... male superheroes do often wear spandex almost as tight as their female counterparts, although mostly the ones I can recall show JUST massive bulging stomach muscles like sausages, or are fairly loose from the chest/arms down... But one thing I will say is that it certainly seems like a lot of male superheroes wear very... tight... protective cups. Almost like the male equivalent of minimiser bras...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink

title-4574307
by BrokenPorcelainDoll on 11. Aug 2008 – 23:24:37
Obsession
by BrokenPorcelainDoll on 07. Aug 2008 – 00:25:28
It's more than just a fashion trend.
by BrokenPorcelainDoll on 15. Jul 2008 – 00:15:48
It's time more of us did this.
by BrokenPorcelainDoll on 03. May 2008 – 11:32:39
My mini epiphany
by BrokenPorcelainDoll on 24. Jan 2008 – 01:46:37
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
by BrokenPorcelainDoll on 16. Jan 2008 – 23:39:52
More Pretty Nice Guys
by BrokenPorcelainDoll on 02. Jan 2008 – 00:44:59
This Would Only Work in my Imagination but...
by BrokenPorcelainDoll on 28. Nov 2007 – 21:13:08
The End of an Epic Story Should be Epic in it's Own Right
by BrokenPorcelainDoll on 03. Nov 2007 – 20:11:23
Equal Rights, not Special Rights
by BrokenPorcelainDoll on 14. Oct 2007 – 23:51:25

12 Comments to A little rambling thought

Leave a comment (Login)