![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Gavotte with a strawman.
Well, it may have taken him an entire month to type out his brilliant response, but Mad Thinker Scott has brilliantly and succinctly responded to an argument that I never made. Now, one cannot comment on Scott's blog without a Yahoo!360 account, and where's the fun in that? I thought that I would continue the discussion over here in my livejournal, where anybody can comment and contribute, regardless of whether they have an LJ account or not. Party in my livejournal, and you're all invited!
But in response to Scott... First, I'm boggled at the continued point-missing. I think in my post I made it pretty clear that a) I have nothing against sexy women or exposed skin in comics, and b) I don't care what you put in your porn, porn is great! What I DO have a problem with is a) objectifying, degrading images of women in comics that are often mistakenly confused for sexy, and b) getting porn splashed all over comic books rated as appropriate for ages nine and up.
Most importantly, regardless of how degrading imagery affects potential male rapists or not, it has been proven to be extremely harmful to girls and women. Hey, there's that link again! How may times do I have to link that damn study before people actually start reading it? I linked it in my comment to Scott that he attempts to address on his blog, but he's conveniently ignored it. Scott still hasn't addressed how sexist imagery harms the mental health of women and girls.
And second, in his defense of pornography and erotica, Scott still seems to have missed my point. My post isn't about pornography or erotica. It's about sexist imagery. There is nothing inherent in pornography/erotica that means that it must contain sexist imagery. So a defense of porn does not equal a defense of sexist imagery. Porn is just like any other classification of media: Some of it is sexist and degrading, some of it is not. My post was about sexism, not about porn. I think that sexism is bad. That doesn't mean that I think that porn is bad. And like I said, proving that exposure to pornography does not increase sex crimes (yes, I knew that, duh) does not prove that exposure to objectifying imagery does not warp how women view themselves and how men view women. Because "porn" is NOT synonymous with "objectifying imagery."
Now, as to what I was ACTUALLY arguing my post, if Scott or anybody else would like to respond, here's how to go about it (because apparently, some hand-holding is required):
1. Prove to me that this (NSFW) is an appropriate cover for a book rated for ages nine and up.
2. Prove to me that this (NSFW) would NOT alienate a huge segment of a comic book's potential market, but that this would.
3. Argue that any of the examples that I labeled as "sexist" in my post are not actually sexist. No, seriously, these examples ARE debatable. I think we can all agree that sexism is bad, but of course we should be able to debate about what is sexist or not. But if you want a real challenge, prove to me that this does not reduce an otherwise awesome female character to an anatomically grotesque sex object, and is thus sexist. I'll give you hint: It's NOT because of the giant boobs, I don't have a problem with the giant boobs. And if you can't see that, then I think we really should step back and question which of us is really hung up on the giant boobs here.
But, as a parting shot, let's break this down a bit:
1. I make a post about sexist, objectifying imagery in mainstream superhero comics.
2. Scott responds by writing a lengthy post about how pornography doesn't harm women.
That, alone, speaks volumes about the current state of superhero comics. Because apparently, they're porn.
Oh, and BTW? My online handle "Kotetsu"? That comes from a porno manga. But if you'd like to still compare me to Anita Bryant, then by all means.
Edit June 16th: Fixed the age boundaries because I finally bothered to look at Marvel's rating system. WHOA.
Edit June 20th: Furikku says it better.
But in response to Scott... First, I'm boggled at the continued point-missing. I think in my post I made it pretty clear that a) I have nothing against sexy women or exposed skin in comics, and b) I don't care what you put in your porn, porn is great! What I DO have a problem with is a) objectifying, degrading images of women in comics that are often mistakenly confused for sexy, and b) getting porn splashed all over comic books rated as appropriate for ages nine and up.
Most importantly, regardless of how degrading imagery affects potential male rapists or not, it has been proven to be extremely harmful to girls and women. Hey, there's that link again! How may times do I have to link that damn study before people actually start reading it? I linked it in my comment to Scott that he attempts to address on his blog, but he's conveniently ignored it. Scott still hasn't addressed how sexist imagery harms the mental health of women and girls.
And second, in his defense of pornography and erotica, Scott still seems to have missed my point. My post isn't about pornography or erotica. It's about sexist imagery. There is nothing inherent in pornography/erotica that means that it must contain sexist imagery. So a defense of porn does not equal a defense of sexist imagery. Porn is just like any other classification of media: Some of it is sexist and degrading, some of it is not. My post was about sexism, not about porn. I think that sexism is bad. That doesn't mean that I think that porn is bad. And like I said, proving that exposure to pornography does not increase sex crimes (yes, I knew that, duh) does not prove that exposure to objectifying imagery does not warp how women view themselves and how men view women. Because "porn" is NOT synonymous with "objectifying imagery."
Now, as to what I was ACTUALLY arguing my post, if Scott or anybody else would like to respond, here's how to go about it (because apparently, some hand-holding is required):
1. Prove to me that this (NSFW) is an appropriate cover for a book rated for ages nine and up.
2. Prove to me that this (NSFW) would NOT alienate a huge segment of a comic book's potential market, but that this would.
3. Argue that any of the examples that I labeled as "sexist" in my post are not actually sexist. No, seriously, these examples ARE debatable. I think we can all agree that sexism is bad, but of course we should be able to debate about what is sexist or not. But if you want a real challenge, prove to me that this does not reduce an otherwise awesome female character to an anatomically grotesque sex object, and is thus sexist. I'll give you hint: It's NOT because of the giant boobs, I don't have a problem with the giant boobs. And if you can't see that, then I think we really should step back and question which of us is really hung up on the giant boobs here.
But, as a parting shot, let's break this down a bit:
1. I make a post about sexist, objectifying imagery in mainstream superhero comics.
2. Scott responds by writing a lengthy post about how pornography doesn't harm women.
That, alone, speaks volumes about the current state of superhero comics. Because apparently, they're porn.
Oh, and BTW? My online handle "Kotetsu"? That comes from a porno manga. But if you'd like to still compare me to Anita Bryant, then by all means.
Edit June 16th: Fixed the age boundaries because I finally bothered to look at Marvel's rating system. WHOA.
Edit June 20th: Furikku says it better.
no subject
The fact that you think a picture with no exposed naughty bits is "porn" leads me to think otherwise. I have yet to see a right-wing Christian group define anything lacking so much as a nipple as "porn". Even O'Reilly, when he's criticizing rap videos for having half-naked women flaunting it onscreen, doesn't call it "porn". (Porn-like, "disgusting" - but not porn.)
In fact, my impression is that a great deal of supposed "left-leaners" are every bit if not more so prudish about porn than conservative America, especially when the porn isn't - eh, what's a good word - respectful, or defined as "healthy". It was the Clinton Administration that came out with the Digital Millennium act, after all.
My impression is also that this prudishness is also more prevalent in the young. The US has got a weird divide going on, with a marked increase in media's sexual content - while at the same time a focusing on sex crimes and child abuse in the news is fostering an anti-sex hysteria that gets drilled into kid's heads. Even as actual rape and child abuse statistics decline, a greater push for awareness and vigilance is intoned menacingly in the news.
It is my completely unscientific opinion that younger folks today are far more likely to develop a distaste for sexual content than, say, my generation. In an environment where the message seems to be that perverts and rapists lurk just around every corner, I think that can't help but affect how even people who consider themselves sexually "open-minded" develop. Which leads to Gaia Online, and a population that skews towards the young calling my picture "porn".
You still haven't said yea/nay regarding "is my picture (or an FHM magazine cover) porn", and I'd be interested to hear that answer, because I've provided a picture with particular characteristics, and a sampling of opinions from the population of Gaia Online, a site that as I type this has 31,847 users online, and has had a top record of 86,738 simultaneous connections, with a bit over 8 million accounts. I have no way of knowing how wide and varied the selection of folks commenting on my picture are, but if that sampling is an accurate cross-section of Gaia's user base, and can be applied to the entire Gaia population, a surprisingly huge number of people will see my picture as porn. And that, true, would bear out your assertion that the HfH cover is porn, because if my picture is porn, that cover certainly must be. And that would also indicate that the dilution of the word mentioned earlier is already underway.
So I would like to hear it from you, and I'll consider the matter discussed and over with: Do you think my picture is porn? (And the secondary question is: does the answer depend on Gaia's reaction and definition?) If it is, then I am a pornographer, and I guess I'll have to adjust to my new role in the world. If not, then you'll have to explain to me why not, and why that reason trumps a population that potentially exceeds that of "comics fandom".
no subject
If not, then you'll have to explain to me why not, and why that reason trumps a population that potentially exceeds that of "comics fandom".
Did the entire population of Gaia Online comment on your picture?
So I would like to hear it from you, and I'll consider the matter discussed and over with.
I'll hold you to that, pal. Because your alarmist, increasingly disconnected-from-reality ramblings about porn and the tyranny of dynamic language are growing tiresome. And the Digital Millenium Act was about copyright protection, not about censoring or limiting access to porn.