1) Playboy has done this sort of thing before, in the 70-80’s there was a comics themed pictorial with “undressed” interpretations of Batgirl, Sheena, The Dragon Lady and Lois Lane. I can’t tell you what the Batgirl picture did for my teenage brain. Recently they had a pictorial called directors fantasies, where known film directors directed a picture shoot, Kevin Smith did a Lois Lane themed picture, with Superman standing behind her fondling her breast. There have also been pictures over the years of parties at Hef’s with models dressed (or undressed) up as Wonder Woman, Catwoman and Mystique from the X-Men, (I know this because I read the magazine for the articles, scouts honor), I don’t remember any controversy over any of these pictures, in fact except for a conversation on the old CompuServe forum, (back in the day), I don’t remember the comics community ever acknowledging them.

2) I think Tiffany Fallon looks more like Wonder Woman then most of the names that have been thrown around to play her in the proposed movie. If she’s has any acting ability, (I have no idea if she does or not) I say give her a screen test. If she’s good cast her, I’m completely serious about this.

3) I’m not sure how much of a role model Wonder Woman is to young girls today. Having helped to raise my niece, (now in her teens), I can tell you that characters like Buffy or the Power Puff Girls were more a part of her youth then Wonder Woman ever was. In fact if her Uncle didn’t read comics I don’t think she’d even know who Wonder Woman was. Part of this is because DC hasn’t really successfully marketed her for the new generation, on top of the fact that kids don’t read comics anymore. Anyway the point is, I don’t really see this as harming a role model, at least not a role model for young girls.

They’re declining to “participate in this story.”

LINK

http://www.exterminatingangel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=355&Itemid=256

I hear your argument that you would like to have role models for your young daughter. I hear the argument that you feel the character is rooted in honor, valor, and strength. I get it, I truly do. But if portraying a character as anything other than YOUR personal conceptualization of them is wrong then you had better plan to blog against Saturday Night Life and Family Guy and Robot Chicken and pretty much every stand-up comedian ever, and so on. And it needn’t be comedy either.

I wonder how many people here on this comment thread feel that this portrayal of Wonder Woman (in a men’s magazine popularly known for nudity) is “wrong” but also loved Moore’s Lost Girls or even Watchmen for that matter.

That photo is an artistic expression. You may argue the value of its expression or claim that its being used to advertise, that it might be appealing to some lowest common denominator, or that its intellectually devoid. Even if I grant you those points, its still an artistic expression, whether you value it or not. And here’s the problem: should someone making their own artistic expression be REQUIRED to portray every concept material in the fashion that represents the highest moral and ethical stature?

And oh by the way, if you are upset merely because she appears nude, then you’re not as enlightened as you think. Nudity making something “wrong” is the same dogma that says “sex is bad.”

(But it’s OK to ogle Gerard Butler.)

Not that it will “move” issues as the issue is wrapped in blue plastic at the news stands anyways. Frankly it doesnt seem any more offensive than what DC has done to the actual Wonder Woman over the last 50 years or so.

It’s also much more tasteful than this:

http://www.4realgals.com/galleries/Angelique/08/2.jpg

I’m sorry, but in the words of Dustin Hoffman in Wag the Dog, “This? This is nothing.”

I mean, I’m sorry, but all I can assume is that whoever wrote this article has obviously not seen any pornography that’s been produced in the past two decades, because if they had, they’d know that Playboy is quite possibly the last adult magazine in existence to finally feature a model undressed as Wonder Woman.

No, really; go ahead and check. Penthouse, Hustler, Club, Score, Swank, Genesis, High Society … literally every single one of them has already used this idea (many of them more than once), and I can guaran-goddamn-tee that every single one of them was far fucking filthier than Playboy’s layout has any hope of being.

Now, if you object to seeing an icon of female independence being reduced to a male fantasy, fair enough, but at this point, “Wonder Woman as a porn character” has become such an overused trope, even within the relatively repetitive genre of pornography, that it’s long since become cliche.

By all means, object to what it represents, but please recognize that what you’re objecting to is not a new thing, and indeed, considering that this latest iteration of it is coming from Playboy, I’d wager that it actually stands a decent chance of treating the character more chastely and respectfully than the actual comics themselves.

At this point, taking offense at anything done by Playboy is like thinking that the worst problem facing public schools is kids who wear their baseball caps backwards, because even within the realm of degrading portrayals of female comic book characters, this doesn’t even rate. I’d still consider Identity Crisis and “One More Day” way more offensive, from a feminist standpoint.

Besides, Wonder Woman is pretty standard fetish stuff, and cape porn’s easy enough to find online.

As are naked lady pictures of Lynda Carter, for that matter.

So, one more storm in a teacup, then.