more links

MSN - BUT DO WE HAVE TO SEE HER THONG?

The eternal question. I would like to thank the DD's trolls for the heads-up.

Comic book characters are already over-sexualized with their muscles and tight costumes. I would also argue that the comic figurine market is so narrow that it doesn't make sense to apply mainstream standards to it anyway. BUT, what I can't deny is that this specific rendering of MJ makes her look like a low-rent stripper, which she isn't. So why demean the character like this? And, more to the point of the people who object to the figurine, why would Marvel sanction such an image of their own character?

*squints* He doesn't *look* like a hysterical fangirl.

Comments

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

*points to icon*

The more, the merrier :)

[cereta.livejournal.com]

That's 1000x better than the segment MSNBC ran, in which they interviewed a male comic store owner who opined that it was perfectly in character, once we got past the reporter tittering over the fact that grown-ups read comics. They also never actually said what people were upset over, creating the vague impression that "it's for adults" answered the outrage, and thus that the problem was that it was sexy.

[brownbetty]

aaaahaaahaaa and they linked to the girl-wonder bingo card. Man, more fun times when the trolls show demanding to know why "But men are objectified too!" isn't a good argument. Thanks for the heads-up!

[dafna]

*squints* He doesn't *look* like a hysterical fangirl.

Heeee. It's possible he works with one, however. Completely hypothetically, I mean.