Skip to Main Content

Entry tags:

Dude, you really need to watch more porn.

Recently, a rather confused blogger was unable to tell the difference between fetish lingerie and Wonder Woman's iconic outfit. For anybody else who may be confused, here is a brief guide:

These are a woman's lacy underthings:

These are NOT a woman's lacy underthings:

Clothing is a form of expression. It communicates. And the way that clothing works - its message and its purpose - relies on a LOT more than just how much skin it covers. For example, Emma Frost, when she wears her laced-up fetish lingerie and nothing else*, is broadcasting one message:

And Wonder Woman, when she wears her chest armor and star-spangled bottoms, is broadcasting a different message:

Frankly, I'm confused as to where the source of confusion is. Well, okay, I can see some of the confusion. Wonder Woman's outfit may not be underwear, but it IS rather impractical for superhero-ing purposes. Her outfit would work for figure skating, swimming, or just hanging out on the beach on a hot summer day. But as a superhero outfit, it leaves her way too vulnerable to, say, killer bees. And it definitely serves as a telling example of the sexist double-standard in superhero wear. Name me an iconic male superhero with bare thighs whose outfit leaves his neck and shoulders exposed. Off the top of my head, the only example that even comes close is the classic Robin outfit, the exposed thighs of which once upon a time caused a great deal of gasping and pearl-clutching. Because Robin is a boy, and boys can't show skin!

(ETA: Challenge met and matched in comments! Beast runs around naked from the waist up. But then again, he's covered in blue fur. Likewise, we've got the Hulk, but the reason that he's wearing very little clothing is that he tends to shred his normal clothes when he transforms. Finally, we've got Namor, a "normal-skinned" superhero who exposes most of his skin. But I'd question how iconic of a character Namor is, especially since he seems relatively unknown among non-comic readers. Any other takers? Plastic Man covers his shoulders and arms, but curiously leaves his legs and chest bare. And then there's Hawkman! But although his chest is mostly bare, his legs are still completely covered. And finally, we've got Martian Manhunter! Although, like Robin, he's mostly covered up now.)

BUT. Impractical though her outfit may be for Wonder Woman's purposes, it's still NOT underwear. And it's definitely NOT fetish lingerie. At the very worst, it's a leotard with some nominal boob armor. Not underwear.

And... Would you argue that the following items of men's clothing are a) interchangeable, b) worn under the same circumstances for the same purpose, or c) intended to communicate the same message?

I would hope not. It doesn't matter that all of the above items of clothing share the same basic parameters of form. They are clearly different articles of clothing for different purposes. Can you tell which ones are underwear, and which ones aren't? Among the underwear, can you tell what is fetish gear, and what isn't? Yeah. Kind of hard not to tell.

It seems rather simple to me. A swimsuit is not a corset is not lingerie is not a superheroine outfit (unless you're Emma Frost and still stuck in the 1970s). This should be obvious. And really, it's pretty fucked-up to say that just because a woman is exposing a certain amount of skin, it's the same as if she's wearing fetish lingerie. That's a curiously prudish thing to say, coming from a blogger who normally casts himself as crusading against prudishness. Honestly now. Have we never been to a beach, or what?

Next, our very confused and fashion-challenged blogger concluded that, because Wonder Woman's outfit looks like fetish lingerie to his inexperienced eyes, Wonder Woman can never be "immune from being sexualized by the male gaze."

First, I have to question how he's using the phrase "sexualized by the male gaze" here.

Does he mean that men are unable to not think sexy, sexy thoughts whenever they see Wonder Woman's star-spangled derriere? Well, okay, whatever. But that doesn't matter. Nobody cares who you fantasize about in your own head. Believe it or not, feminists are not interested in being thought police.

What matters is what you say and do to women in the real world. How you interact with real women. And how you write and draw fictional women. There is a difference between "attraction to" and "sexualization of". Just like there is a fundamental difference between "sexy" and "sexualized." This page shows the APA definition of "sexualization." It's a good clear definition, for discussion purposes. And please do note that "sexualization" should in no way shape or form be conflated with "sexuality."

SEXY is what a person IS. SEXUALIZATION is something that is done to a person**. Sexualization is almost always an act of sexism.

You can argue that it is inevitable for men to sexualize women because of some (scientifically debunked, natch) biological drive to treat women like sex objects. Well, most men also carry a deeply instinctual biological drive to shit in their pants whenever they damn well feel like it, but they don't, because as a civilized society, we expect better of our members. Same with the sexualization of women. It is natural and instinctive for human beings to feel sexually attracted to each other. That's human sexuality. That's not the same as "sexualization." Nowhere does "I am attracted to this woman" translate to an excuse to treat her in a sexist manner. In fictional terms, nowhere does "this fictional woman is attractive" translate to an automatic excuse for lazy, clichéd, or sexist depictions of said woman.

Yes, a depiction of a fictional woman is an act. It is not a thought. And thus, it is possible for a depiction of a fictional woman to be sexualized. Why is that sometimes bad?

Long-established characters should, you know, ideally be written in character. For example, Tarot is a loves-to-be-skyclad huge-breasted witch who likes to have sexy, sexy adventures that usually end in nude fairy orgies. Wonder Woman is not. If you're writing or drawing Wonder Woman to look or act like Tarot, then YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. That is bad writing (and sexualization). And that is what most feminist fans of Wonder Woman object to.

The same way that he seems unable to distinguish between undergarments and other articles of clothing, our fashion-challenged blogger also does not appear to be very clear on the difference between "attraction" and "sexualization."

Oh, and to complete the trifecta, our fashion-challenged blogger also asserts that Wonder Woman fans who are upset about sexist depictions of her are "naïve." This goes back to the same old "Oh my gosh, you're surprised by this?!" reaction that makes me want to hit other bloggers over the head with a clue-by-four. Y'know, NOBODY IS REALLY SURPRISED when a comic book superheroine gets shat on. That doesn't mean that we aren't still ANGRY when it happens. Please stop saying that we are surprised (and by implication foolish and stupid) when this stuff happens. We aren't. We aren't surprised. But we're still pissed off.

Hmmm, I think that's it. Quite an impressive trifecta. And he managed to accomplish it in sixty words! Doubly impressive.

*Okay, she's also got a cape and boots and gloves. I guess the cape counts as something.
**I realize that, in the case of fictional characters, everything is by nature done to them. But, as long as it IS possible to depict a sexy female character who is not sexualized, I would say that the APA definition still works in the fictional realm.

BONUS EDIT FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

Actual quote from the same blogger's most recent post:

Really, if you seriously call what's going on in mainstream comics today "porn", you are a precious sheltered child who isn't grown-up enough to discuss comics with the adults. Oh, was that a bit condescending?

Yeah, it is a bit condescending, especially coming from someone who just said that Wonder Woman is wearing "a bustier and panties" because he's either blind, really really fashion-challenged, or a precious sheltered child who isn't grown-up enough to discuss comics with the adults.

EDIT #2: Added a picture of Flo Jo, because as

zhinxy pointed out in the comments, Flo Jo is awesome.

EDIT #3: Our fashion-challenged Mouse has responded not once, but twice! And both times manages to miss the point by miles. Plus he goes on an entertaining mini-rant about the APA is using propoganda buzzwords to demonize his libido, or something. Repeat after me: This is NOT about what you do or don't find attractive. It's about how you treat women. Mouse was the one who said sexualized in his post. Sexualization is not about what you THINK of women; it is about what you DO to them. I think I made the distinction between "attraction" and "sexualization" pretty clear in my post, but Mouse continues to respond as if I'm criticizing him for what he finds attractive or sexy.

Right. I'm invoking the Three Post Rule now. I have no more interest in engaging with someone who is more interested in flashing his victim complex than he is actually engaging in a feminist discussion.

EDIT #4: Scott responds and the debate continues in the comments there.

EDIT #5: In the interest of ~~fair discussion~~ pointing and laughing, here's Mouse's third response.

EDIT #6: Another response from Scott.

EDIT #7: A great post by Kalinara on why Wonder Woman's classic costume is pretty damn sensible from an athletic standpoint.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I saw that post and was just like *sighanon*

SEXY is what a person IS. SEXUALIZATION is something that is done to a person**. When directed at women, sexualization is almost always an act of sexism.

Exactly. He's ttlly suffering from his male privilege right there basically thinking that anything he finds attractive MUST be b/c it's made with his libido in mind. >:|

As you pointed out, a lot of stuff that guys might go "omg that shows skin, hawt" aren't made at ALL with the idea that this is to attract guys but to be functional and for other purposes.

And his argument that ppl shouldn't be upset b/c things are prevalent is just... ugh... so dumb.

Emma's outfit appears mostly to seduce- Wonder Woman's, to me, appears to be mostly a combat costume.

Then again, not familiar with Marvel- does Emma actually do anything physical in that?

Diana's very physical, in fact, I don't think I could come up with a better outfit for her then her normal outfit. A lot would depend on how invulnerable WW is, but I think she's at least as tough as Donna Troy- so killer bees shouldn't be a big problem.

One thing I will say, a lot of the newer female superheroes I've seen are wearing pants or long dresses.

Then again, not familiar with Marvel- does Emma actually do anything physical in that?

In that outfit, not really. That's her White Queen outfit from the 70s/80s, when her powers were purely mental. Nowadays she has new physical powers - like the ability to turn her body into solid diamond and unleash a whole lotta EMMA SMASH when the situation calls for it - and consequently has a much less wedgie-prone outfit.

[...] killer bees shouldn't be a big problem.

You'd think so, but... (http://community.livejournal.com/scans_daily/4625362.html#cutid1)

Very nice post. I enjoyed reading it.

Wonder Woman vs. The Killer Bees. Oh, it's on!

Lovely rebutting.

And I don't think you could call him an icon by any stretch, but Colossus' uniform was rather revealing. Granted he was usually metallic underneath, but not always. Of course, he'd have that to fall back on whenever the killer bees arrived. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/AstonColossus.png

A-HA, Colossus!

Well, I consider my challenge halfway met. He still doesn't have bare shoulders. But you're right, that is an awfully revealing outfit by male superhero standards.

It seems that if the male super hero has atypical skin that sometimes they put him in skimpier clothing. I'm pretty sure I've seen Beast in just the bottoms.

Sasquatch of Alpha Flight and the incredible Hulk are other examples of this.

I'm not trying to disprove your point or anything. It is weird I can't even think of a minor character with good old fashioned skin that is heavily bare. No doubt there is a double standard.It seems that if the male super hero has atypical skin that sometimes they put him in skimpier clothing. I'm pretty sure I've seen Beast in just the bottoms.

Yep, you're right, ever since Beast got blue fur he's been running around mostly naked from the waist up. I'd say he's iconic enough to count. But then again, like you said, blue fur. Likewise with Hulk.

As for normal-skinned superheroes who expose as much skin as Wonder Woman... Well, there's that one guy from the Legion of Superheroes who basically wears a space-corset and Speedos. But he's an extremely minor character, nowhere close to iconic. I can't even remember his name.

I'm not sure who you are thinking of in the Legion, but I just thought of Marvel's Namor!!! Granted, he is kind of a villian I think...maybe? I think he wins the next-to-naked male contest though.

http://images.wikia.com/marveldatabase/images/thumb/d/dd/Namor_008.jpg/300px-Namor_008.jpg

This is kind of a fun game...

OMG Namor!

You're right, this is way too fun of a game...

As for normal-skinned superheroes who expose as much skin as Wonder Woman...

I find it amusing how you said that and used your Starlights icon at the same time. :D

I have nothing to contribute, really, so let me just say: damn, did I love this post. :3

This was a wonderful post. I'm reminded again of why I admire you so much, and am even starting to feel a bit inferior...again...

MUST NOT FEEL INFERIOR. Biology majors are just as intelligent as arts and education majors who write lots of (very good) fanfiction.

Anyways, you make some really excellent points. It's really stupid to think that "sexy=automatically degraded or degradable". I reckon it's perfectly possible to be sexually attracted to someone and, at the same time, deeply respect them. Ayn Rand actually had a theory that she set out in her fiction that your sexual attraction to someone is based on your deeply held values, and so...blahblahblah...people with high self-esteem will be attracted to those they respect very much, while people who think of themselves as degraded will be attracted to those they don't respect at all.

Yes, there are enormous holes in that theory which need filling, and Rand's sex scenes are written in ways almost deliberately to make feminists blanche. But my point is to backup what you said, that being sexually attracted to someone doesn't mean you automatically see them as sex objects.

Also, your post reminded me of all those people who say the Starlights' outfits look like bondage wear. To be honest, I used to kinda see their point. But now, after seeing Wonder Woman and her extremely sexy look, which almost mirrors those of the Starlights down to the high boots, I'm definitely reconsidering!

Sorry for such a long post...but one last thing. Please tell me honestly. Do you find the really thoughtful "rant" posts on my journal to be as intelligent and well thought out as yours? Forget about different opinions and politics for now, just rate them on how well I wrote. That will rest my heart.

Also, your post reminded me of all those people who say the Starlights' outfits look like bondage wear.

Actually, I'm one of those people. ;) I think that the gratuitous belt buckles and the spiky collars are kind of bondage-y visual cues. But I'm still amused at the people who look at those outfits and go "Ewwwwwwwwww!"

Sorry for such a long post...but one last thing. Please tell me honestly. Do you find the really thoughtful "rant" posts on my journal to be as intelligent and well thought out as yours? Forget about different opinions and politics for now, just rate them on how well I wrote. That will rest my heart.

YES. Yes I do. I usually don't comment because I don't want to get into political wank with my friends - there's no point to that. But I think that you are one hella smart woman.

I think that the gratuitous belt buckles and the spiky collars are kind of bondage-y visual cues.

Yep...that's why I thought so too. I've heard that Naoko Takeuchi sometimes looked at Playboy for inspiration. Maybe that's where she got the idea.

(I think some of those bondage wear pics you posted look a lot like Sailor Aluminium Siren's outfit.)

Still, the Starlights are about the furthest thing you'll find from "Ewwwwwww". They're really lovely, "bondage"-inspired suits or not.

YES. Yes I do. I usually don't comment because I don't want to get into political wank with my friends - there's no point to that. But I think that you are one hella smart woman.

Thank you so much for commenting honestly. Yeah, a political discussion will probably heat up into something unpleasant. But I'm glad you think I'm smart.

(Hums the theme to Get Smart)

I read that post of that blogger and just shook my head, wondering how the confusion started myself, but luckily, you came along and made an excellent rebuttal and helped to organize some of my own thoughts about the matter.

I'd honestly still prefer the original WW costume if most artists would give her good, flat, strong ass-kicking boots like the Dodsons have in their work on the current Wonder Woman run. I've asked women before about the high heels and most have said they're worn for short amounts of time and not for anything really physical.

I also hated the 'you're surprised?!' reaction to WW's portrayal in Playboy. I just found it so dumb myself while wondering aloud that of course no one is surprised, but a good many people are ticked off.

As for superheroes that wear nothing above and below the shorts... well, there's Goku, of DBZ, but he only loses his shirt in every fight he fights, and not his pants.

... and at the end of the first episode of Justice League Unlimited, we got to see Green Arrow wearing nothing but his mask and a towel... even though he normally doesn't run around in that.

This is a good post.

Also,
someone who just said that Wonder Woman is wearing "a bustier and panties"

OK, bustier, I can kindasorta go with. But panties?

Really, WHO wears grannypanties like that these days? (Other than, I guess, grannies.) Has this person even LOOKED at a Victoria's Secret lately?

Hey, a little late to the party (I entirely blame WFA for taking so long to update, and not my own inability to read around ;)), but there's a few things I wanted to mention, with regards Mr Mouse's original post and your response to it.

Firstly, I by and large agree with what you're putting forward, particularly the latter part of your entry, about the problem of conflating the act of sexualising something with simply finding something sexy - something which Mr Mouse seems to be doing.

I also think that Mr Mouse was being overly facetious with his argument - I doubt (and I'm sure you don't believe) that he was seriously trying to argue that Wonder Woman's outfit was entirely identical to underwear. However, at the same time I think you may be a little too critical of his depiction of it thus: as you point out, her outfit is somewhat impractical for its purpose, and indeed male superheroes tend to be better covered by their outfits (even if many of said outfits are so skin-tight as to be seemingly useless as protection). While Mr Mouse may take things too far, he is in his own way drawing attention to the exact same problem - that female characters (specifically WW) are drawn in a way which is already somewhat sexualised, accentuating their sexual attraction.

Aside from that, I have only one other comment to make, and to be honest, it's the one thing in your post I really disagreed with: "SEXUALIZATION is something that is done to a person**. When directed at women, sexualization is almost always an act of sexism."

I agree with the sentiment somewhat, but I would argue that a fairer analysis would be "SEXUALIZATION is something that is done to a person**. Sexualization is almost always an act of sexism.". I'm not going to pretend that it's anything near as big a problem for men than it is for women (i.e. it's far more commonly applied to women, and still generally seen as more socially acceptable for men to sexualise women than vice-versa), but it's important to bear in mind that objectification (and what is sexualisation if not a specific form of objectification?) is a problem even if the person being targeted is a white male.

Um, and that's it. If you disagree with me utterly I'd be happy to hear your (or anybody else's) response - similarly, if I've mis-interpreted you, please let me know!

(PS - my second attempt at posting this - the first one contained a typo which made one of my arguments entirely nonsensical. Hopefully tidied up now!)

I also think that Mr Mouse was being overly facetious with his argument - I doubt (and I'm sure you don't believe) that he was seriously trying to argue that Wonder Woman's outfit was entirely identical to underwear.

Actually, I assumed that he was being overly facetious. As Mouse always is whenever addressing ~~his imaginary strawman version of~~ feminist arguments. But, abortive attempt at a joke or not, his post was still a perfect storm of stupidity and sexism ("She dresses like a slut! Therefore she doesn't deserve respect! Feminists are naive and stupid!") So I felt that the post deserved a semi-serious response. Plus, any excuse to post a picture of pirate-themed lingerie.

"SEXUALIZATION is something that is done to a person**. Sexualization is almost always an act of sexism."

You know, you're right. Thanks for pointing that out. I've edited the post accordingly.

"Actually, I assumed that he was being overly facetious."

Ah, sorry, bad wording on my part - I didn't doubt that. My statement was meant to suggest that I was sure you didn't believe that he was seriously trying to argue that WW's outfit was identical to underwear, not that you wouldn't believe that what he was saying was facetious. I are good with words, sometimes.

And thanks for editing the post, it's a small issue, but as I'm a particularly petty man, little things like that bother me ^_^

The thing about Mr. Mouse is that he'll tell you you've got reasonable arguments, then go on and rant to the high heavens about the prudish hordes all about, then tell you you're being reasonable in criticising sexism in comics again. Ah well, I find him rather charming for that. Can't help it.

Don't nobody better say nothing bad about Namor!!

And how about Plastic Man. He had his thighs out and what appeared to be a mesh t-shirt.

Ha! Plastic Man's costume is awesome. ^__^ He's been added to the list!

Thankyou. Nobody ever says they can't take Flo Jo or a figure skater seriously in those outfits.

Hawkman always runs around without a shirt on.

A-ha, you're right! Hawkman has been added to the post. Thanks!

You're welcome!

Let's also not forget the loincloth set... Tarzan, He-Man, Conan... and Ka-Zar, although I'm not sure if they'd fall into the given category.

Yeah, I'm kind of trying to stick with the Spandex Superhero category for the purpose of this post, rather than branching out into the Sword and Savagery titles. But thanks for the suggestions!

Martian Manhunter? I know they've covered him up recently, but usually it's shorts and a cape.

Aha, you're right! I'll add him to the post now. Thanks!

Here from WFA. I take your point, but Di's togs still drive me crazy. I have learned to put up with it, but still harbor fantasies of getting into an editorial position where I can make her outfit look like clothing instead of painted-on lines.

Yeah, I know. ;) I was always partial to her original skort (yay, skort!), or her Darwyn Cooke-designed classical armor-like costume, myself.

Name me an iconic male superhero with bare thighs whose outfit leaves his neck and shoulders exposed.

This statement would only make sense in a weird Huxlean utopia wherein all men and women dressed alike. Name me any male who dresses like that, whereas most young, attractive women dress like that regularly (at least if you live in a semi-warm climate). Superhero costumes reflect social mores about clothing in general, and I don't know why it should be surprising that women's superhero costumes show more shoulder and thigh than men's superhero costumes when real life women's clothing shows more.

In the summer, men wear short pants because it's hot, not because they look good. Men in short pants look like overgrown, hairy toddlers.

If you're arguing that young women (in real life) tend to dress slutty and are slaves to the male gaze, well that's a separate argument, of which comics costumes is only the tiniest footnote.

This statement would only make sense in a weird Huxlean utopia wherein all men and women dressed alike. Name me any male who dresses like that, whereas most young, attractive women dress like that regularly (at least if you live in a semi-warm climate).

Uh?

Most men that I know will wear shorts when it's hot out. Sometimes they'll even wear tank tops or go shirtless!

Oh wait...

In the summer, men wear short pants because it's hot, not because they look good. Men in short pants look like overgrown, hairy toddlers.

I think that statement is hilarious and I think that you have issues.

But let's go back to men and women dressing alike or not. In many athletic, physically demanding professions, men and women DO dress identically. Racecar driving. Scuba diving. Skiing and snowboarding. The military. Police work. Firefighters. Doctors. If being a superhero is the a combined athletic/law enforcement endeavor, then why shouldn't both men and women in general wear the same amount of covering? They do in real life, in those types of professions.

Superhero costumes reflect social mores about clothing in general,

And if the social mores about clothing are sexist, then superhero outfits are going to be sexist. Yes. I know. That's the point.

I don't know why it should be surprising

It's not surprising. That doesn't mean that it's not annoying.

Putting aside the fact that the police and military are uniforms, not choices on the part of the wearers, but take the police for example: whenever you see cops in movies, they're wearing uniforms with long pants. Cops in short pants, even though they exist in real life in plenty of our hotter states, are generally reserved for mockery or outright comedy. There's something not very dignified or authoritative about an adult male in shorts.

There's something not very dignified or authoritative about an adult male in shorts.

I'd like to see you try to tell that to the professional male basketball, tennis, volleyball, and soccer players who wear shorts as a matter of course. Also, surfers and swimmers. And how about the real-life cops, sherrifs, forest rangers, military drill sergeants, and postal workers who wear short pants? Do you think that they get laughed at and not taken seriously?!

"Because a funny cop movie says so" is not a very convincing argument. ;)

You may personally find short pants silly-looking, but your personal distaste hardly applies to the rest of society.

Athletes are your counter-argument? Professional children?

Besides, everyone knows rich people can wear whatever the hell they want.

And how about the real-life cops, sherrifs, forest rangers, military drill sergeants, and postal workers who wear short pants? Do you think that they get laughed at and not taken seriously?!

Yes.

You think that all professional athletes are rich?
You think that all professional athletes are "professional children"?
You seriously think that people don't take drill sergeants seriously just because they might wear short pants?!

Wow. You really are a bundle of ~~joy~~ self-important affected disdain. Okay then!

And if the social mores about clothing are sexist, then superhero outfits are going to be sexist. Yes. I know. That's the point.

Uh, okay, which makes me wonder why you're taking issue with comics specifically.

Because in this blog I write about comics and TV and movies. And because I am responding to something stupid that somebody said about a comic book.

Well... I mean, the non lacy underthings are something that I wouldn't fight crime in. I believe in form over function. All of those non-underwears have lookalike lacy underthings made exactly like them available. And you are using the JLU cartoon Wonder Woman as an example. To be fair, most comic images of Wonder Woman that I've seen have been lower cut in the bust, tighter, and higher cut in the crotch and butt. And, even in the JLU cartoon, there was one episode where Wonder Woman had to take a shrinking guy and put him in her boobs so she could keep fighting while she transported him. Just like I've seen Emma Frost more clothed; it depends on the artist and the particular audience. Sold to adult men, Wonder Woman is sexualized. Sold to children, Wonder Woman as sex object is downplayed quite a bit. It's two very different products being sold, and the distinction isn't made clear for the consumer beforehand (whether you'll be getting pornified comics or the non-porno kind), which is where I have a problem-- but it is a product nonetheless.

And I will agree to Mouse on one point: the less you wear, the more you will be seen as a sexual object by those attracted to your gender, because showing naked skin is considered very sexual by many in our culture. Women do it, too- my 13-year-old sister summed it up rather elegantly (and sarcastically) by saying, "When guys are running up and down the street outside, shirtless, they're saying they want you to look at them. They should just wear signs saying, 'I'm meat! Judge me!'" In contrast, for years, the teen magazine I used to be subscribed to had pin-up posters each month of their "hot guy" to tear out with information about them written on the back. I thought it was stupid then and would throw them away with the magazine when I was done with it. But is sexualized objectification really worse than non-sexualized objectification? Either way, you are reducing a person or thing to what you want it to be or symbolize. That said, I've never been a big enough fan of Wonder Woman or put her on a pedestal to the point that I was really concerned about her strapless swimsuit costume and its impracticality or sexual undertones.

This is of course based on the fact that Wonder Woman as a character has been treated pretty well otherwise (especially recently); you know, actually treated as a character. Most other female characters in comics are written and/or depicted as props, one-dimensional, pushovers, etc. which is another problem entirely that I think reflects more about the treatment of women in comics than an actual respected character's use as eye candy (in addition to having a personality versus that being the character's sole purpose). Summed up, I'm more insulted by bad writing than by bad art or bad character design.

RE: Nekkid male superheroes-- I say Iceman and the Silver Surfer can count, because they're always shirtless at least, and in some art, Iceman is only wearing briefs (at least when he's powered up; real clothes or a uniform will magically appear when he goes back to flesh-and-blood Iceman).

http://krusiko.land.ru/1001-seks-znakomstva.html 1001 секс знакомства

Сергей взял её под руку, и они зашагали вдвоём по гулким улицам старого Лондона.
http://krysiko.narod2.ru/znakomstva-seks-gorod-chita.html знакомства секс город чита

-ах, это! Да, да я понял, о чем идет речь, значит так, на Вернадского есть стриптиз бар, жду в 11 .00 не опаздывать!
http://myrysikca.narod2.ru/krasnodar-seks-znakomstva-s-telefonami.html Краснодар секс знакомства с телефонами

Настаивай на своем. Играй в испорченную пластинку. В ответ на вопрос "Почему ты меня бросаешь?" занудно повторяй свое объяснение, не меняя деталей и аргументов. Рано или поздно она вынуждена будет смириться с твоим решением.
http://oksanusik.pochtamt.ru/sayt-znakomstv-s-yaponkami.html Сайт знакомств с японками

Андрюха думает: Все, решено. Завтра поеду прицениться к этой "Тойоте".
|http://marialvova2011.narod.ru/index.html Криворожский сайт знакомств
http://marialvova2011.narod.ru/seks-znakomstva-v-mezhdurechenske.html секс знакомства в междуреченске

Я не сторонник резких суждений и выводов. И все сказанное не означает, что женщине не стоит реализовывать себя в профессиональном плане. Просто формы этой реализации бывают разными. И напоследок – пример.
http://deianaromonka.narod.ru/molodye-seks-znakomstva.html молодые секс знакомства

Это поцелуй, во время которого выделяется так много слюны, что все лицо партнерши может оказаться мокрым, и ваши губы будут скользить по нему так же легко, как лебедь по водам озера. Иногда это приносит удовольствие, особенно тогда, когда вы уже настолько возбуждены, что не замечаете неприятной влаги. Но гораздо чаще партнерше это не нравится.
http://irjevaswetlana.narod.ru/sayt-znakomstv-piter-lav.html Сайт знакомств питер лав

Думаю, он не будет против. Мужчины время от времени любят сдавать «ведущие» позиции и играть роль пассивной стороны, с которой цепкие женские ручки могут делать все, что захотят и даже больше. Позвольте себе быть активнее, это даст вам возможность досконально изучить мужское тело и найти все его «слабые» точки, с помощью которых можно не только доставить мужчине наслаждение, но в случае надобности использовать «в корыстных целях».
http://swetichiku.narod.ru/nizhnyaya-tura-chaty-znakomstva.html Нижняя тура чаты знакомства

Есть несколько путей. По определению женщин, искусный поцелуй включает следующие факторы: страсть, чувственность, фантазию и разнообразие. Типичное высказывание 30-летних женщин: "Предпочитаю целоваться с человеком, у которого чистый рот, свежее дыхание, который нежно, в такт со мной касается своим языком моего, не плюется слюной и может поцелуем сказать мне, с какой страстью и в то же время нежно он ко мне относится". Мужчины же обычно находят, что женщина хорошо целуется, если она часто открывает рот, предпочитает французские поцелуи и не требует многого - объятий и любовного шепота во время поцелуя. Главным же фактором успеха как для мужчин, так и для женщин является знание того, что нравится и не нравится партнеру, и умение выбрать соответствующий поцелуй. Таким образом, уметь хорошо целоваться значит знать много разных видов поцелуев, для того чтобы наилучшим способом сблизиться со своей партнершей. Только в этом и заключается цель данной книги.
http://ludmiloxha.narod.ru/intim-znakomstva-ggrodno.html Интим знакомства ггродно

Сервис международных знакомств CuteOnly представляет импозантных женихов западного мира.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only