…

Michael rightly points out that in some cases, a motif like “the detective’s beating” is there to convince us of the hero’s peril, not to tantalize. And yet, even if such a scene is not “about” sexual titillation, there’s a sense in which it is about transgression in another form.

Anyways, forget about that Playboy cover, how this ‘Demise’ site gets by a lawsuit is beyond me!!! O.O

Let’s not confuse voyeurism and dominance. I know people like Laura Mulvey have tried to conflate them, but they really are separate concepts.

And to give Ms. Pantoja a slice of word pie.

Perverts?

Aren’t we being a tad harsh?

(and no, I personally don’t like comics like that)

The bottom line is that the website is bullshit and it’s bullshit when the only way the authors of any form of entertainment have to trade on exploiting people or things in order to turn a dollar. It’s abhorrent and evil no matter where it crops up. (It’s the kind of thing that Superman taught you to fight against.) It’s negative to dwell on undermining and subverting someone else to your will for,…whatever reason. It’s wrong to defame a person or gender or ethnicity or whatever,…just to make a buck.

Moving on to the subject of the site in question, yeah, that’s a sexual defeat fetish. Doesn’t take Batman to crack that case. Hell, Roy Raymond could figure this one out. We then move on to the comics themselves. Two questions arise:

(1) Is a sexual defeat fetish what the creators are expressing when they create scenes like this?

(2) Regardless of the answer to (1), if readers are indulging such a fetish from scenes of super-heroines (or heroes; I don’t think it’s a full discussion until we point to Ted Kord’s brains on the floor) suffering ignominious defeat, should creators refrain from showing such scenes?

Answering my own questions, I would say

(1) It depends on the scene in question, and probably the creator. If the hero/ine pulls a victory out of the clutches of defeat, then we have to return to the Spidey question above and try to figure out which scene the creators were more into. If she doesn’t, then we have to do much the same thing, and look at how it’s portrayed. So, speaking of overall trends, I’d say it’s inconclusive as yet, and I’d welcome someone doing a fuller study. As a corollary, I’d say that you can have creators indulging a defeat fetish without it being a sexual defeat fetish. A lot of noir writers really like having their detectives get the shit beat out of them over the course of the story. It’s usually not something that’s sexualized, though; the brutality is meant to be, well, brutal, not erotic.

(2) This is trickier. On the one hand, I don’t think it’s a good idea to indulge people who get off on seeing women or men get brutally beaten. (This is of course separate from the more genteel beatings that usually go on in superhero comics, which are perfectly all right.) On the other hand, as a writer myself, I’m loathe to say certain topics should be taboo just because of how degenerates might interpret them. I mean, does that mean we shouldn’t have any scenes where a building catches fire for fear it’ll inspire a budding pyromaniac? I’d have to go with “No.” (I realize I’m answering a question only I raised, but it’s one that needs addressing, I think.)

Overall, I’d support a general toning down of the sex overall in mainstream superhero stories. Yeah, there’s always going to be an undercurrent, but it could stand to be more under these days. There’s no reason I need the best available shot of male or female junk in every panel, regardless of what’s going on.

As for scenes where people get the shit kicked out of them, the audience pretty much has to be the watchdog. If we want Marvel and DC’s comics to look less like Superheroines Demise, then we ought to tell them so. Vote with your wallets and your letters. Shake a finger at it when it’s done distastefully, and praise it when it’s done tastefully.

Two final thoughts:

If someone wants to make super sexed-up superhero comics for 18 & over audiences, more power to them. There’s a market for it, and maybe if the perverts can get what they’re after there, they won’t go to the mainstream for it.

And, I’d like to see someone do a “sexualized violence” comparison between Marvel/DC superhero books, and non-Marvel/DC superhero books. I’m guessing it’d be, pardon the expression, revealing.

What’s most interetsing about your post is this, I think:

“Lets remember something here, these fetishes, all of them, came about because of the comic books, not vice versa, those comics, inspired people to explore the fetishes that they have.”

I wonder if that is really true? I don’t know enough about the psychology of this particular fetish to analyze it, but some fetishes are based on specific pre-existing items, but others go much deeper such as the foot fetish or bondage in general. You couldn’t say that bondage came about because someone invented handcuffs.

Read into it what you will.

Jealousy … to have a girlfriend that would don a costume … as opposed to the garden variety girlfriend who rolls her eyes at the mere mention of “comic books.”

Yeah, but there’s also more boob- and butt-shots in comics than ever before. It gets pretty tiresome, because we’re all old enough to KNOW that the “artist” is trying to push our buttons. And this from a guy (me) who likes checking out said parts as I walk down the busy streets …

I meant the current MS. MARVEL series, written by Brian Reed.

The sexist nature of depicting superheroines in comics shouldn’t be a debatable issue, if one looks at how so many of the costumes are designed. Crystal in the “Ultimates” line, with most of her torso exposed; the current (?) Supergirl with the exposed midriff; the Young Avengers’s Hawkeye, also with an exposed midriff; Firebird, in BEYOND, reportedly sported a redesigned costume that exposed her midriff, even though that would arguably go against her nature; DC’s Power Girl, with a cutout in her costume that exposes part of her breasts (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Girl ). The costumes’ designs have never served a functional purpose, and never will. The sexism in that aspect of superhero comics is so deeply embedded that complaining about it is practically useless, but the sexism is useful to refer to when more extreme situations, such as the depiction of Tigra in NEW AVENGERS #35, come up. People who regard sexism in comics as natural and routine won’t recognize misogyny in a story unless they’re virtually hit with the evidence.

SRS

There has always been an air of sexuality in comic books, and it has driven sales, and it has been alluded too many times. Just look at the Watchmen, there are two moments that come to mind that show that part of the attraction that Nite Owl has for Silk Spectre is because of her outfit and the sexuality it conveys.

Lets face it, there has always been sexuality in comic books, the danger of it, the outfits, much of the imagery is there.

Lets remember something here, these fetishes, all of them, came about because of the comic books, not vice versa, those comics, inspired people to explore the fetishes that they have.

I dunno, it seems to me that its a whole lot indignation over nothing, and speaking as someone who could never quite get the image of Batgirl being tied up by the Joker and Catwoman out of his head, I can relate.

The kink has always been there in comics, it always has been, and most likely will always be there. From the bondage, to the death traps, to the revealing costumes, the fetish is alive and well.

I have to admit that there is some surprise here about this site, its been around a good 10 years and there are more out there - many more. Superheroinecentral.com comes to mind.

Not to mention the irc rooms and such set up.