![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Thursday, May 17th, 2007 04:37 pm
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.
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.
no subject
From:Heeee. It's possible he works with one, however. Completely hypothetically, I mean.
(- reply to this
- link
)