Huh. Don't know why I always thought it was a rooftop. Never noticed the glass before. And if you feel it's an important enough issue that I didn't keep reading Catwoman after finding it awful, that you have to rail on about it in ten different ways for half of your response, you might as well tell me how they handled this particular sex in the overall arc, such that you think it's a stirling example against everything I've railed against. I mean at this point, you kind of have to.[/quote]
I think it would be better if you read it yourself, but I can sum it up for you.
Oh so when you say "stretch" you mean literally stretch--as in make her taller and thinner. I thought you meant if you just literally made her taller, that that would change her body type. I would only say to this that "stretching" the girl out in the manner in which you do here, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was talking about, and is a completely inconsequential point, because it's the equivilent of saying "well that square would be a triangle if I removed a side and connected it in the shape of a...triangle". It's not the same body type if you change it, silly.[/quote]
But a triangle is a triangle even if you stretch one of it's aspects. If you take She-Hulk and shrink her to Black Widow size, she would still have about 30-50lb. of pure muscle over Natasha, they have very different sillhouettes. Is the difference as exagerated as between Hulk and Hawkeye? No, but She-Hulk is a very different character than Hulk is, even though they start from the same basic concept. Could they have made She-Hulk look like this?
Sure, but I doubt she would have been anywhere near as popular a character with men or
women. She would be about as popular as Stompa.
You said yourself he can't have sex like a normal person because he has a bat cave, and a utility belt, and all kinds of knick knacks and paddiwacks that prohibit him from even removing his gloves, let alone having normal sex.[/quote]
You can have normal sex with gloves on. Most people just don't wear gloves. It's no more weird than having sex with your socks still on.
I think either you are exagerrating, or minimizing what I'm talking about in order to make it contort to the point you think you're making, because I can assure you that you haven't.[/quote]
Nope. I have most definitely seen sex scenes on Grey's Anatomy in which two characters entered a break room or something, fully dressed, moved "the business end" of their pants down, without removing them completely, clearly through the context had sex like that, and then pulled up their pants and left.
[quote]Probably I'm not as desensitized to the lack of diversity as you are, so I can't see the same minuataue that makes up a difference for you, when to a normal person looking from outside, they can see that the women all for the most part look the same.[/quote]
Only if they choose to cling to that viewpoint. Now I will grant you that the "She-Hulk" body type is fairly rare, maybe only a few dozen characters of any notoriety have it, but the same it true of the "hulk" type, Hulk's just a more popular example.
[quote]It didn't mean much in the first issue. The book could have ended before that scene and would have not missed it one iota.[/quote]
Yes, but if they'd ended without it the issue would have been several pages short, and the next issue would have run several pages long.
[quote]Maybe if you spent more time explaining how it meant something or how it impacted her in a way that is interesting, and less time complaining at me for not reading awful comics, we could advance the dialouge.[/quote]
You can read what you want to read, you can't can't then also claim to know what you're talking about. "I don't read it, but I know that it's bad," doesn't hold up. I read the first issue of the Glory Reboot, so I know that that issue was bad. I can't claim that the rest of it will be bad based on that though.
[quote]Nothing you said about Batman or Catwoman matters. And I will resist the obvious bate to get into a debate with you over your clearly flawed revisionist history of batman's libido. And I don't get what's wrong with bringing up "the bottom".[/quote]
You can bring it up, but don't bring it up like it has anything to do with me. You several times claimed that I had some problem with Batman being on the bottom, when I never implied any such thing. You seem to do that a lot, just assuming something random about me and then going off at me about it, without first confirming that I believe anything like what you imagine I believe.
It totally made sense that they had sex, I'm sure. It wasn't neccessary though and was stupidly done. Which diminishes Catwoman as a character.[/quote]
Why? Why does it diminish Catwoman as a character that she had sex? Now you've got me curious. Are you taking the Rush Limbaugh approach?
Well it worked for Empowered.[/quote]
Yes, but Emp is a VERY VERY different character. Making Diana into Emp would make NO sense. Emp works because she's super-insecure, she's a nobody, a bit more like Peter Parker than Diana, even moreso. She's considered a joke by most of the world, but we, the reader, know she's not because she's strong enough to push through that and keep trying, and sometimes she manages to save the day. I'm not saying that DC couldn't tell that story with a
character, even though it would be tricky to not make it derrivitive of Empowered, but it would never work with Diana. For one thing, she's not from the modern world, so she isn't likely to be as insecure and self-conscious as Empowered is about what people think. For another, there's no way Empowered could stand in the trinity, as a JLA headliner. It would completely undermine Wonder Woman as a character. There is just nothing connecting the modern
Wonder Woman (as in the one that existed in any of our lifetimes) to Empowered.
I do. One is done to amplify the heroic nature of the character, and the other is done to amplify the sexualization while diminishing her heroic nature--which within the superhero genre is critically important.[/quote]
Just so we're on the same page here, you're refering to Captain America in the second
[quote]Manga is also not a genre. [/quote]
No, but I was talking about two Shonen Jump manga, they are as close to being in the same genre as they can get.
[quote]My critique on the treatment of women is pointed toward superhero comics because the criticism inherently deals with the tenants of the genre. There's no real way to cross apply what I'm saying about superhero comics to say doctor television shows, porn, or one piece.[/quote]
So basically, sexual exploitation is only bad when it takes place in superhero comics, and if the same scene takes place wearing scrubs instead of spandex then it's perfectly OK, and even comics that don't have any sexual exploitation at all should be held accountable for those very few that do?
[quote]It's hard for me to partipate in Black Canary's empowerment as a hero when I have to read her being put in humiliating poses for male readers enjoyment.[/quote]
And yet you're advocating
that they do it for Wonder Woman? What do you have against Wonder Woman?