She's supposed to be a strong woman but from her initial conept sexuality is part of her strength.

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!!!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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’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.