You’re Not a Wonder, Wonder Woman
You’re a naked, painted Playboy cover now. Image after the jump (NSFW).
From the inside cover of Playboy’s February 2008 issue…
Truth, justice and American sensuality? Yeah, because sensuality can stop a bullet cold, make the Axis fall, change their minds and change the world.
So, Wonder Woman finally gets a female writer after sixty years in existence (and manages to get some favorable real-world press as well) and Playboy follows up on that meme by painting a naked chick who couldn’t survive more than a week on The Celebrity Apprentice. Wonder how Gail Simone feels about that. And I wonder where DC/Warner stands on the issue, or are we to expect a naked, body-painted Batman on Playgirl in the months leading up to this Summer’s Dark Knight?
What do you guys think?
UPDATE: We’ve contacted DC Comics about this cover, and we’ve got their response HERE.
|
|
Never miss an update. Subscribe to Pink Raygun by Email or subscribe via RSS
I think a part of me just died.
Also, I cannot tell if Playboy is praising her or patronizing her in their little write up.
Well, first of all – it’s not like the article was about Wonder Woman. It was just a photo shoot highlighting Playboy’s cover girl, and she was playing “dress up.”
As she’s well within her rights to do.
But secondly, female sexuality is a power, and I would argue that sexuality has always been one of the things that makes Wonder Woman strong, in addition to her physical strength and other abilities/weapons. Otherwise she wouldn’t wear that outfit. And that’s not a bad thing. I don’t understand the need to separate sexuality from everything else that makes a strong woman a strong woman, as if choosing to use your looks to your advantage were any more or less questionable than using your intelligence, or your ability to compromise and nurture. Is it the only positive trait women have? Of course not. Should it be focused on exclusively? No. But sometimes wearing a hot outfit that accentuates your curves and physical attributes is the smartest thing you can do, and in a superhero culture that is male-dominated, sometimes getting your enemies to focus on your cleavage so that they don’t see the Lasso of Truth you’re about to spring on them isn’t such a horrible thing.
Teresa – I agree, a hot outfit that accentuated curves would have been awesome, and we would’ve spotlighted the Playboy cover for that reason alone. But don’t you think there’s something a bit creepy and wrong about reducing a hot outfit to taint-staining bodypaint, and calling it a tribute?
But my biggest issue with the cover is that I have to wonder where DC/Warner legal is on this whole thing. After all, they have copyrights to protect, and I would imagine that portraying their most recognized female character in this manner, ESPECIALLY in the wake of the Gail Simone/first female writer on WW/iconic female character press they’ve garnered recently, would do something to taint the WW brand.
Do I get an award for using taint in two different contexts within one comment post?
Wonder Woman doesn’t have those knobby thingies on her bustier.
I do agree with you, Teresa, that sexuality doesn’t have to be separated from everything else in order for a woman to demonstrate strength. If the model was wearing an actual costume, this would be a different post, but she’s obviously very naked. (I know – “Ooooh, a naked woman in Playboy – that’s super weird”).
Wonder Woman doesn’t appear anywhere else in this issue. Had there been something featuring Wonder Woman through the ages, or had this been part of a larger piece on comic book heroines, this also might have been a different, more positive post. But, no other reference is made to her.
There is, however, a lengthy piece on Irish McCalla, the original Sheena. Why not have the naked chick painted as Sheena on the cover?
Playboy could get sued over this. Wonder Woman is a DC trademark.
Wonder Woman could get sued by this. The American flag is a trademark.
I’m my opinion the choice to paint her as Wonder Woman was only to be noticiable in the cover among the competition, Tiffany fallon seems to be beautiful with a great body but so may be the models in in other magazines directed to men, but to body paint her as a recognizable icon? You call the viewer attention right inmediately
The basic color combination is the only thing that makes you get the reference of wonderwoman, the gold W eagly at the bustier is missing and many details are different so they probably didn’t care about looking exact. The pose quite sexy but generic you can repaint the model in anything else or clothe her as anything else and no one would have note the difference.
My only conclusion is that Wonder Woman is quite recognizable to bring attention and people with a wonder woman fetish to buy the magazine, but the people in the magazine didn’t care in anything else aside physical appearance about the character.
All that fuss over that?
– SCAM
I have one basic issue with this cover –
Wonder Woman is a DC/Warner tradmarked character, and Playboy doesn’t own the rights to it. There is no editorial reason for having her on the cover, as there is no feature article inside on the character, or comics, or anything. Some years ago Playboy did a cover with a woman in a painted-on Superman costume – however, the “S” logo on the chest was changed to be a Playboy Bunny, and the issue itself featured a pictorial of Valerie Perrine – from the Superman movies. Instant editorial context. Wonder Woman just hangs out (literally) on the cover with no rhyme or reason for her being there. What we’ve shown you is the entire Wonder Woman content inside the magazine.
DC, by not challenging this cover, weakens their Wonder Woman trademark, since any future appropriations of the WW character for adult entertainment that DO get challenged by DC can point to the Playboy cover as part of their defense. This happens enough times, and pretty soon DC becomes powerless to stop future infringements.
I can’t help wonder how swift and furious would DC/Warner legal be in responding to Batman or Superman being trotted out for titillating, bodypaint fun on a nationally distributed magazine.
“Austin Mayor” – what do you mean by “SCAM?”
women are such c*nts will you f*cking just lay off the got damn pmsing f***********ck
(Unoriginal Coward’s post edited with *** by Space Cowboy)
i like porn alot and i think woman have the right to show there bodys in the way they are confertable with witch in some girls is sex/porn or just showing off there naked bodies for people to see.
We'll stop being 'c*nts' if you start being smarter and not as cowardly.
That’s a rather strong reaction. No one said you couldn’t purchase this magazine and enjoy it. We just posed a question. You’re obviously bringing your own baggage to it.
I was wondering what was wrong with this new issue of WW I bought. This was even weirder than Mike Sekowski’s version!
I’ve no problem with this image. I tend to agree with Teresa’s comments above. Okay, so that’s probably because I’m a heterosexual male but – for the record – I’d have no problem with Playgirl painting a nude male model as Batman, either (your suggestion, not mine!) That’s what equality is all about, right?
Sadly, there is a tendency these days to characterise things as feminist issues which aren’t. Gail Simone writing WW, for example. Don’t get me wrong – I’m looking forward to her run on WW. Not because she’s a woman but because she’s a good writer who’s written some great super heroine comics in the past. Being a woman has nothing to do with it. George Perez’s run on the title was excellent; while Jodi Picoult’s take on the character, for example, was atrocious. (A WW who, after decades in man’s world, can’t even order a cup of coffee?!)
Which raises another point. Despite the publicity being given to Gail’s stint on this comic, she is not the first female writer to write for WW. Nor was Picoult. I don’t know how many others there have been but Mindy Newell (who also wrote the excellent Catwoman: Her Sister’s Keeper) comes to mind.
DAJB – You’re right, Gail Simone isn’t the first female Wonder Woman writer, but she is the first “permanent,” ongoing writer – all the others have been brought on board knowing from the start that they’re only going to be around for XX number of issues.
As for this being a “feminist” issue – it is that. In a year that sees Wonder Woman on the cover of Ms. Magazine with the tagline “Wonder Woman for President,” and coverage about Gail Simone in major internet and print magazines (I believe Newsweek has something this week on her), Playboy’s usage of the character seems more than a bit tacky. Even tackier is DC allowing this to happen – especially since DC/Warner legal has gone after and shut down small time artists for similar portrayals of Batman.
Check out ruckawriter.livejournal.com, there’s some really good commentary going on over there that covers a lot of angles seem to be missed by a lot of other ‘net writers (including ourselves).
“I’d have no problem with Playgirl painting a nude male model as Batman, either (your suggestion, not mine!) That’s what equality is all about, right?”
*sigh*
No, that isn’t what equality is all about.
Because *that would never happen*. You’re perfectly safe in saying that you’re okay with it, because our culture is not set up to present a character like Batman as if his most important function was masturbation fodder.
The minute there *is* a hint of Playgirl-type presentation, fanboys go nuts. See the recent fuss about Captain Steel’s “bulge,” for instance.
Why? They’d never seen anything like this before for a male character, I’d bet. Whereas female comics fans deal with this about once a Wednesday, over and over and over and over and over…
Our culture is set up to present images of women as wank fodder. This is just an extreme example of something we deal with every day, and you never do.
I think there are at least two different issues here.
Whether DC is being sensible about the Playboy cover is one. Let’s be honest, whether they have explicitly given their consent or not, they are only going to complain if they feel it is going to hurt sales. In reality, I suspect it may actually help sales and so I wouldn’t expect anything more than a token protest from that quarter. And let’s not forget, WW’s creator (strange individual though he admittedly was!) was not averse to circulating his own drawings of WW sans costume … (http://home.freeuk.net/moondog/wonder_woman_nude.jpg) It may well be tacky but, as with Moulton himself, DC are bound to be more concerned with the commercial impact rather than matters of good taste.
Personally, I’d prefer they hadn’t done it but – whether it’s in good taste or not – I don’t believe it will hurt either the character or women in general. That’s why I can’t get excited about it.
Thanks for clarifying the permanent writer issue. That’s been mis-reported in sooo many places!
My take on Gail Simone’s appointment is more to do with my belief that the quality of the work is more important than the gender of the writer. That’s why I don’t see it as a feminist issue. Do I care that WW is going to be written by a woman? No. Jodi Picoult’s dreadful work on the title already gives lie to the idea that women are necessarily best qualified to write female characters. Besides, it can’t be true, otherwise it would also be true that male writers are necessarily better qualified to write male characters and I don’t believe that either. Conversely, do I care that WW is going to be written by an extremely capable writer? Absolutely. And I would think that, whether Gail Simone was male or female.
In my view, we should be getting excited about the fact that WW is going to get a writer whose talents will (hopefully!) do her justice. Not about the fact that she’s going to get a writer who happens to be female.
I could care less about the feminism issues, but this chick does Diana no justice at all. Next time, I want someone who really looks like she could kick my ass.
I contacted DC Comics regarding this issue this morning. A full transcript is posted here.
i have a copy of this issue of the magazine… i like it… looks good on her…. just because you couldnt pull it off doesnt mean you can bash her for it…there are alot of copy-right problems everyday… people quote tv shows, movies, and other books all the time.. do you pay your royalitys to them?
Fuck that. Why the fuck does people have to be so uptight about sex? Like any sexual insinuation is going to ruin everything about what’s linked to.
It’s that sort of taboo culture that makes sick serial rapists and the kind.
Sex is perhaps the best thing any man or woman can do in their lives. It creates life from squat, for chrissakes! It is completely natural, the most natural you can get, actually, way more natural than truth-lassos and power bracelets, and it is part of our routine. Instead, it is seen as ugly, sinful, gross and such… When the FUCK did that happen? Don’t nobody think about this????
It is surely a sick and twisted world with sick twisted minds ruling it.
Also, it is a fat hypocrisy that comic fans (and writers, yes), of all the people, are making such a fuss. Wonder woman is portrayed with huge-ass tits and butt on comics for quite some time now. I could point about two hundred wonder woman covers who are way more sexual than the playboy cover. Doesn’t matter if she’s wearing actual clothes or not, the pose the model is in is way more “tasteful” than most wonder woman comics poses over the years.
And one more thing: There’s a reason why women aren’t taken seriously when sensuality comes on the way. It is solely because sex has been, since the dark ages, separated from the rest of our lives. It has become something strange and alien and rare, totally unrelated to ourselves. This kind of oddity makes it an obstacle, because it gets everybody mesmerized. It’s like gold. If gold was seen as what it actually IS, that is, a piece of metal, it wouldn’t have been the reason for so many wars over the ages.
Get a grip on yourselves, people. We’re here on this planet just to eat and have sex anyway. In the long run, nothing else matters.
You’re acting like the lady appeared in the cover slashing a baby rib to rib or something.
Good for you, Mike N. You’ve used your personal freedom to purchase the magazine. No one is trying to take that away from you. Not here, anyway.
You’ve also used your own aesthetic criteria to determine that you like the image. Again, good for you. You’ve made an independent decision. No one is trying to take that away from you, either.
just because you couldnt pull it off doesnt mean you can bash her for it
This is where your thought process is problematic, Mike N. Basically, you’re saying, “You’re just jealous because the model is hot and you’re not.” You go from independent thought and action to a cliched taunt regularly thrown at any fangirl who airs the slightest bit of criticism of the way a female is portrayed. That argument is a joke. Could you at least try to be a little original?
And no, I don’t pay royalties on quotes because that’s considered fair use: “Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports.”
That’s a far cry from using a copyrighted image on the cover of a national magazine.
??What if they cast this model Tiffany Fallon for the much-rumored Wonder Woman movie? Stranger things have happened!
Why the fukc does people have to be so uptight about sex? (and so on and so on)
Daniel, an image is not sex. One can’t be substituted for the other. Nor does a breast feel like a bag of sand.
We’re here on this planet just to eat and have sex anyway.
Then what are you doing spending valuable time on the internet? Isn’t there a Hot Pocket™ and a Willing Babe™ cooling off on the counter waiting for you to fulfill your purpose on Earth™? (please don’t confuse the true purpose of either the Hot Pocket™ or the Willing Babe™)
Apologies for the drive-by comment.
“Yeah, because sensuality can stop a bullet cold, make the Axis fall, change their minds and change the world.”
I don’t know about the bullet thing, but sexuality can be a pretty important force in global politics. I’m thinking of 1984 and Brave New World, where sex is criminalized and the main character’s discovery of sexuality always goes hand-in-hand with his awakening to political consciousness.
So, you have pointed the obvious. Of course an image is not sex, because it is too busy being an IMAGE. Nonetheless, this image depicts a woman using body language to transmit sexual willingness (unless you’re thinking shes standing that way just because she felt like it), therefore, bringing us to my first argument, because symbolism, i don’t know why, messes with people sometimes more than the act itself.
You can say that this sort of thing is a vulgarization of the act of sex, but first you’d have to tell me what vulgarization means. Is there an invisible line that when crossed makes sex something bad? I don’t think so. I think if the two parties consent, everything goes.
You know, we, the terrible men, don’t feel excited with this kind of imagery because we’re jerks. It excites us because it activates our reproduction instincts, it reminds us of something that’s great, better than any of the other shit we do and for that, we fucking worship women. I do, at least. I respect them as thinking human beings, of course, because that’s what they are, and, on this level, genre is irrelevant, but on a different level, i respect them because they represent life, they are the other end of the life circle, and they’re way more elegant and beautiful than men.
And “purpose” is an inadequate word i feel, because it implies we have to DO anything. That’s not the case. For me, living life is making the most of it, enjoying it in the most ways possible. Biologically, the only thing the matters is eating and fucking, sure, but there are other things you can do in between. My time isn’t valuable, no such thing, i do stuff because i ain’t dead and i can’t eat and drink all the time, and such stirred up discussions on the net are great to kill time. But a million years from now, a million miles from here, do you think that stupid cover will have meant something? But that’s a whole different discussion.
Also, i don’t eat hot pockets. Microwave food sucks. Don’t know how you Americans can live on it.
This article isn’t about sex – it’s about the double standard practiced by DC Comics, which vehemently protects the images of Batman and Robin from the sort of imagery now used by Playboy with Wonder Woman. Nowhere in this article did we write “SEX BAD! SEX VULGAR! MEN ARE TERRIBLE!” You brought all of that with you.
You can say this sort of thing is a vulgarization of the act of sex. . . (and so on and so on)
I didn’t. No one is accusing your sexual feelings and urges of being bad, either. Again, you brought that with you. Try reading the words that are there – they don’t support what you’re accusing them of.
But a million miles from now, a million miles from here, do you think that stupid cover will have meant something?
Considering the fact that all bodies in the universe are steadily moving away from each other which will eventually snap the bounds of gravity, ending the universe in the Big Rip, probably not. But, our Sun would have gone nova by then, so the Big Rip won’t matter to us either.
When you put it that way, why do anything about anything? Why care about anything? A million years from now, a million miles from here, absolutely nothing that is happening right now is going to matter. But that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss in our current time and place.
Well, i think i’m not making myself clear enough. Or maybe you’re not getting my point.
I don’t care about DC’s policies, i’m discussing why SHOULD DC care if wonder woman appears naked on a magazine or not. Why should anyone care, i mean, what’s so fucking bad about it? That’s where my point is: Insinuation of sexuality is inoffensive, DC shouldn’t protect any of its characters from this. I’m discussing this common practice of frowning upon sex symbolism in the first place, which is the basis for this whole discussion over the playboy cover.
Unless there’s other reason why this photo is so offensive, then i’m really completely off.
If a symbol of feminism or whatever appears like that on a magazine it doesn’t mean the whole thing has gone to dust. It doesn’t mean anything. Just for starters, i’m sure most people don’t even know that WW is such a strong image for women’s liberation. In the second place, what should hold feminism together are its ideas, not some doodles. Besides, When the average reader picks up a wonder woman magazine, he usually just sees a girl kicking some super-villains butt. You don’t see WW going after employers who abuse their secretaries fairly often. Of course, maybe that’s some DC policy too, but then you should be discussing that instead of the playboy cover. Usually, however, she is depicted as a bright, strong and capable woman, but a lot other female characters are too.
I mean, the chick shows off her legs and rack all the time, using minimal clothes. Playboy didn’t do any more to discredit her image.
Daniel -
DC should care if Wonder Woman (or any of their trademarked properties) appear naked, or otherwise, because if they’re not going to protect their trademarks, then who is? Furthermore, DC should not only protect their trademarks, but protect them ALL with EQUAL vigor.
I didn’t realize this was a copyrights issue!
You mean to tell me it doesn’t matter if the character is a woman or not, the REAL problem is that playboy is using the image and not paying?
Gee, that can change the world right there.
Daniel – You asked “…why SHOULD DC care if wonder woman appears naked on a magazine or not.”
I answered.
Perhaps that’s because you’re talking all around your point and getting sidetracked with platitudes like “sex is the best thing any man or woman can do in their lives.”
i’m sure most people don’t even know that WW is such a strong image for women’s liberation.
Now we’re getting into cultural differences. WW may not be so in your country, but she is for women in the United States.
i’m discussing why SHOULD DC care if wonder woman appears naked on a magazine or not
DC protects other characters from this. If it matters to DC that an independent artist drew sexualized images of Batman and Robin, then this should matter to DC, too.
Oh, come on, man, you’re telling me that all women in US even know who wonder woman is? That everyone is into her story with feminism? Like, even the waitresses living in small town, South Carolina, girls who only wanna mind their business? Well, if they do, then there’s something wrong going on, ’cause there’s a parcel of your population that can’t even point France on the world map (and i’m not saying we’re better- 8% of our population don’t even know where OUR country is at). And, as most countries assimilate a great deal of american culture, i don’t know if there’s such a big difference. Like, most people here wouldn’t know who W.C. Fields or Burt Lancaster were, but they know as much as north-americans about the mainstream.
I don’t know why the position of DC comics is so important. Like what? You expect all great companies to be ethical and moral? Batman is more popular than wonder woman, they’re protecting their business, just like Warner Bros. did to the pirates of the caribbean porn comic. It sucks, i know, bu it’s among a LOAD of other things that suck, and if you’re gonna chase injustice, there’s a LOT worse going on.
I mean, why aren’t you talking about sex slavery in eastern Europe, or east-asian sweatshops, or women abuse in Darfur, and so on? Do you think those women working eighteen hours a day, being sexually arrested, to make bullshit tennis shoes for rich people care what playboy is doing with wonder woman? Care about what is the DC attitude about that?
And i stick to my argument. If you want DC to take the right stand, then it shouldn’t care if ANY of their characters are depicted nude. There’s nothing wrong with nude people. The problem is that you’re taking a moral stand that should be as transitory as the unfair treatment to women.
I mean, let’s suppose this: DC files a lawsuit against a guy for using Batman and superman in a Fig Newton commercial. Then, some time later, some other guy uses wonder woman for his commercial and DC has nothing to say about that. Unfair? Yes. But would even make ANY news or blog postings? I doubt so. The only difference? One is related to sex and the other is not. That’s all I’m saying from the beginning.
And if it seems I’m sidetracking, I’m truly sorry, I’m no Richard Dawkings, I’m just trying to illustrate my point here, but you’re welcome to ignore my unnecessary blabberings.
I am sure that you could travel to a small town and ask that waitress and she will know who Wonder Woman is. She may not be able to rattle off the artists who have drawn her, the writers who have written her, or go into detail about her storyline, but that waitress will have a concept of who Wonder Woman is and what she looks like.
There aren’t many female characters which have been marketed to girls in the US for decades – Wonder Woman is one, Barbie is the other. So yeah, just about everyone has some concept of them and would be able to recognize them visually. Sure, there will be the exception of the crazy family living in a compound who will only be aware of Lot’s wife and such, but most people are going to know.
Perhaps if France had the same marketing team, more people would be able to locate it on a map. Getting on products really helps with recognition.
Yes, there is much worse going on, but world wide injustice toward women isn’t our focus at Pink Raygun. There are numerous other sites to do that much better than we ever could.
I stick to my argument as well – there is nothing wrong with nudity. What’s wrong is the double standard. DC DOES move to protect their male characters from showing up nude and sexualized. I’m not making that up. That’s not theoretical. That is a fact. And that’s the problem.
Yeah, ok, she would recognize the image of wonder woman, but would she know the importance of the character for the movement?
And yeah, i get your point. But i don’t see it as a big problem. Major companies pull that shit all the time, not only regarding gender but race, religion and etc. And i guess it will be a while until this is over. The political issue Greg Rucka has brought up? I totally agree with playboy on that one: Far stretch.
But i don’t know… Can’t do any bad to ask for fairness. Sometimes i forget that in the states they LISTEN to the general public from time to time, if the speech is loud enough, so it’s not wasted effort, and ignore this issue could be worse, and there’s so much more injustice here and this injustice is so much more lasting that i forget injustice can be solved.
I recognize i was a bit off in my arguments, seeing that your main focus was different of what i thought (and that’s not undue, because at least on this posting, your position is not that clear).
But i think I’ve wasted your girls time enough now, and i’m sorry for that. I may be a comic fan too, but i have no business nosing around other countries’ issues, given i never even been there and my biggest face to face encounter with an American lasted for about 40 minutes.
I’m not surprised DC Comics isn’t interested in getting involved in this “controversy.” There’s not much that Playboy could do to ruin Wonder Woman’s rep that Playboy hasn’t already done. To demonstrate that, I give you this cover from a 1965 issue of Wonder Woman.
I dont mean to get on my feminist soap-box but I am so tired of seeing my favorite DC character being depicted this way. I mean really, WW is just now, in the past 5-7 years, recovering it’s image from the shity storylines and mediocre art of the Byrne years and the almost blatant bondage fetish/stupid haircut and costume Deodato years. And I agree that if Playgirl had used Batman or Superman with no apparent permission there would’ve been blood, not a wussy one sentence reaction.
AlphaGirl did an awsome job debating this by the way, the “waitress from North Carolina” would absolutly know the the Wonder Woman/feminism issue, basically if you live in the U.S. and havent been living under a rock for the past 35 years you would probably get it.
I know I’m several months late to this discussion, but I just now found this page and I wanted to take issue with a comment made here.
In #33, Alpha-Girl says:
“DC DOES move to protect their male characters from showing up nude and sexualized. I’m not making that up. That’s not theoretical. That is a fact. And that’s the problem.”
I disagree. And my example why comes, ironically, from Playboy as well.
In their 50th Anniversary issue for January 2004, one of the features was to have various movie directors recreate movie scenes with an erotic subtext. Among them was Kevin Smith, who photographed his wife as Lois Lane with Superman. She is shown on a rooftop in a black see-thru bra and black miniskirt which slightly exposes her genitalia. Behind her is an unknown male model in a Superman costume, his arms in Lois’ arms, his head by her shoulder, while Lois looks at him approvingly. Both are in an obvious loving embrace. DC never raised any objections to this.
You may say this doesn’t count because Superman isn’t nude or bodypainted, but it is an undeniably sexualized image of Superman, even more so, I think, than Playboy’s WW cover. The latter only suggests playful cheesecakery, while the former suggests full-blown eroticism. And again, DC never objected.
And as for the “nude” part, just look at that Smallville ad with the shirtless Tom Welling and painted-on Superman logo.
And I don’t believe the Batman paintings analogy is a valid one. I believe DC’s main objection was that the Robin depicted was underage, meaning those paintings crossed the line from homosexuality to pedophilia. If this Playboy cover were to show something like Wonder Woman kissing or being aroused by an underage Wonder Girl, then it would be a valid analogy. But it doesn’t.
So this is why I believe you’re wrong in saying DC holds their male characters to a different standard.
We get updates on new comments by the minute, so even if you’re late, you’re not really late. If that makes any freaking sense at all. It’s late and I’m drunk on Obama right now.
I’m not so stubborn that I can’t change my position when presented with new evidence. You bring up good points, some of which I was not aware of at the time I wrote this piece. I may stand corrected on my original position.
Thank you for the quick response. I honestly wasn’t expecting to get any, certainly not so soon, given my lateness. That’s a nice feature your website has.
By the way, here’s a link to the Superman/Lois Playboy pic I was referring to:
THIS LINK IS NSFW!!!!!
THIS LINK IS NSFW!!!!!
THIS LINK IS NSFW!!!!!
http://www.newsaskew.com/images/jen_playboy.jpg
THIS LINK IS NSFW!!!!!
THIS LINK IS NSFW!!!!!
THIS LINK IS NSFW!!!!!
such a profound discussion on wonder woman let's you have an insight of the great minds of this country's people
Those of you who think this is demeaning to the character should take a look at the original concept of Wonder Woman. Her only real powers originally were that she was super strong, fast, and she could tie men up and make them tell the truth. Her weakness was that if a man tied her up, she'd lose all her powers.
She's supposed to be a strong woman but from her initial conept sexuality is part of her strength.
this is waht i am dream about all time long