>https://archive.is/58ZYr#selection-595.0-664.0
(mods pls don't delete i would like to be allowed to have a conversation about this)
why do people get this angry about anything sexualized marketed to nerds?
people like this sort-of used to have a point, in that it might be nice if there were also some things marketed to people who don't like sexy women in things.
but the linked article points out in its first paragraph that nowadays there are lots of non-sexy women in aggressively de-sexualized nerd entertainment. Star Wars is unsexy, Ghostbusters is unsexy. Here on /co/ you have unsexy Kamala, unsexy FemThor, unsexy Squirrel Girl, even unsexy Vampirella, unsexy Red Sonja and unsexy Dejah Thoris!
But still this guy is outraged because there exists somewhere, somehow, something sexy that nerds are enjoying, even if it's literally nothing more than a handful of fanart covers + one street fighter comic that will sell (maybe) 3,000 copies.
Why is this? Why are people so angry, in the year 2016, at the thought of a nerd getting to enjoy the *fantasy* of an attractive woman behaving sexually towards him? Why is this such a moral outrage?
>>82284659
Because pandering to one's carnal instincts is the lowest-common denominator, repulses and dehumanizes a potential marketing audience and just brings down the quality of a medium overall, unless that genre is pornography. Do you really think half the population wants to see some stupid rubbery ass plastered 3/4ths of the page as the defining feature of every character of that gender?
>>82284701
Maybe not half the population, but the majority of the intended market seems to tolerate it, if not overtly enjoy it.
And you can't deny that Cho draws a good booty.
>>82284701
>>>/tumblr/
>>82284659
because anything men like is bad
>>82284701
>dehumanizes a potential marketing audience
> Do you really think half the population wants to see some stupid rubbery ass plastered 3/4ths of the page as the defining feature of every character of that gender?
women don't buy comics. Just because women are half the population doesn't mean they are half the market.
>just brings down the quality of a medium overall
projecting
take >>82284781's advice
I used to feel some sympathy. But the more aggressive and hypocritical they've gotten, the less I give a shit. You watch a movie like Thor MoS and have scenes where he's shirtless and the girls are making faces at each other. That's apparently female empowerment. But the second a woman does something like say Harley in the trailer for SS, it's attacked for being misogynist.
Maybe a lot of women don't actually give a fuck? Maybe it's ok for guys to get a kick out of pretty girls? Maybe these idiots have pushed their contradictory logic too far and we should ignore them until they turn it down a notch?
Fuck em.
>>82284816
>thor or mos*
>this whole thread
>>82284701
I always wondered why Barbies aren't marketed towards boys as well. I mean, why alienate half your market?
>>82284781
So that's basically your rebuttal to everything? Wow what a marvelous intellect you've shown I'll have to quote you on that ingenious remark.
>>82284701
>Do you really think half the population wants to see
Why do you specifically and only care about what that half of the population wants to see, and visceraly hate the idea of the other half of the population getting to see what it wants to see?
Why is it so upsetting to you for someone to say "we are going to make this product based on what people who want to see this kind of thing want to see. People who want to see other kinds of things can look at the kinds of things they would like to see"?
>repulses and dehumanizes a potential marketing audience
Why is it so repulsive for women to be drawn sexually?
>unless that genre is pornography
Why is this an exception?
Why are you viciously and aggressively against any hint of sexuality in anything, anywhere - oh but if it's porn, go wild!
Why is someone who likes hardcore anal prolapse videos okay in your book, but someone who likes an occasional bit of cheesecake is responsible for destroying the quality of an entire genre?
>>82284890
>>>/tumblr/>>82284894
>>82284781
>>82284814
I obviously disagree with >>82284701 but i wish people wouldn't tell him to leave and go to tumblr because his opinions are exactly the sort of opinions I asked for.
I really want to understand the mindset of people who think this way. Why is it so important to them that nerds never ever ever ever get an evil evil evil evil evil evil boner from looking at a sexy butt on a comic book cover?
>>82284886
Watch as no one takes this guys argument seriously even though its 100% legitimate.
>>82284814
Notice the "Potential." Don't you think if say, Indians, African Americans, Asians and Mexicans were suddenly getting into some 50's style literature or comics they'd have to remove ridiculously racist and obscene caricatures before they aren't seen as extremely dehumanizing?
The same counter-argument would basically be "Well you guys don't read comics why should we take Nanny McNappyhead and Towel CurryDude off the cover?" When the reason for their excuse is WITHIN the justification?
>>82284894
If you look at posts by attractive women cosplayers or comic fans they all tend to love the cheesecake. There are tons of photos of Cho signing cosplayer's tits, JSC has a pretty big female following. Honestly its just frumpy unattractive no effort women then get upset about this shit.
>>82284940
I don't read Marvel, but I really enjoyed seeing Black Panther in the new movie. But I have an African friend and I thought of telling her about it... And I imagine the concept of a made up country and "in my culture etc" would probably annoy her. Shit still exists today.
Which side do I need to agree with to make them stop hiring artists who are bad at drawing, or draw stupid shit? Psylocke stop throwing your snatch in my face you're fighting for your life and your legs can't bend that way.
>>82284765
That he does.
>>82284816
Look, even when THOR or HULK are shirtless, they're still powerful figures. They're the main characters, and you want to BE them and watch them fight and win and identify with them as the heroes.
When fucking Blackwidow is swinging her latex ass and bootyshaking you want to nut her and give her a slap. That's the idea, it's not "Empowering" at all. The sexual objectification is completely different.
That's not to say there cannot be sexualized female characters that are also treated like real people and not objects, but it's so damn slow getting into it.
It doesn't help that you have dumbfucks going the opposite route and making Squirrel girl as ugly, unlikeable and obnoxious as possible like there's no medium way.
>>82284886
I can honestly say that as a kid I probably would have wanted some Monster High dolls. Heck I've bought a couple as an adult. They have such fun, creative character designs. Its a product that was made with girls in mind, but has enough lap over appeal (monsters!) to make them desirable by boys to. It would be idiotic to think that they should suddenly make Rambo Barbie or something.
>>82284886
They are dumbass. They're called action figures. Action figures came from dolls.
They literally invented the term "Action Figures" to market them towards boys so they could act like they were separate from girls toys. Are you just pretending to be this ignorant.
>>82284659
It's because it's resistance to a forced norm.
>>82284977
I have female friends who loved MoS because Superman was hot as fuck.
And I don't see how Blackwidow is at all a good example. She's hot as fuck, competent and intelligent. She's hardly a fucking sex object - she's the definition of a character being sexy and empowering at the same time. Please leave /co/.
>>82284997
Action figures have obviously evolved into their own genre of toy, but if you look at the origins like the original GI Joe's then yes they are very much a boys version of a doll.
>>82284977
>women don't like bootyshaking
explain twerking
>>82284977
Is it so hard to believe that there are women out there that would love the idea being a badass while also being sexy as fuck at the same time?
>>82284997
right, but barbies are still marketed toward girls, which is sexist towards boys
it's not good enough to stick boy's dolls in some "action figure" ghetto while girls are allowed to play with real dolls as if they were somehow ENTITLED to have the LEGITIMATE doll market to themselves! dolls won't be truly safe for boys until we've eradicated barbie's obscene collections of clothes and shoes and replaced them with guns.
>>82284940
>Don't you think if say, Indians, African Americans, Asians and Mexicans were suddenly getting into some 50's style literature or comics they'd have to remove ridiculously racist and obscene caricatures before they aren't seen as extremely dehumanizing?
No, I don't think we should retroactively censor things just because people might get triggered over things in the past.
>>82284977
so when thor and hulk are shirtless, they're sexual in a way that appeals to women, which is good
but when black widow is in a tight outfit, she's sexual in a way that appeals to men, which is bad
so it would be okay for black widow to be sexual, but only if she's sexual in a way that appeals to women?
why does all sexuality have to meet your personal definition of what's "empowering", which happens to correspond 1:1 with what women find sexual?
why aren't things men find sexual also allowed, just because you happen to hate other men?
>>82284894
>Why do you specifically and only care about what that half of the population wants to see, and visceraly hate the idea of the other half of the population getting to see what it wants to see?
Because I'm a self-righteous loon and hypocrisy pisses me off. Why are you more justified in getting mad from your fan-service being taken away then me having it exist at all?
>We are going to make this product based on what people who want to see this kind of thing want to see. People who want to see other kinds of things can look at the kinds of things they would like to see
Because that thing is shitty and dumb and offends me. Live and let live don't apply here buddy. Slavery, Leeches and Snake Oil were a thing once but I don't have to agree with them.
>Why is it so repulsive for women to be drawn sexually?
Because they're not allowed to be drawn otherwise and it pretty much cements their status as sex objects, because nerds reading it cannot tell fantasy from reality thus their social grasp.
>Why is this an exception?
Sex exist to sell sex, go nuts with that. If you're trying to tell a story or give entertainment be fair, or just put a 'Porn' stamp on comics and be honest with your smut.
As for the last line, because 9/10 times it interferes with the characters and story and is just unneeded.
How do I put this, say I loved Vampires. Me and my friends had vampire kinks so we started writing comics and stories and people bought them, but they started to notice that in nearly every issue there were vamps. Even in history and SoL settings there'd be some bitch going "OOoooh please bite me." These issues sell well and are good but won't change their bizarre focus.
Wouldn't you feel creeped out eventually because you cannot separate the medium from our gross vampire fetishes? (Or Feet, adult diapers, whatever) You might say "It's not for me then" but REALLY enjoy the stories if there weren't Foot shoved on panel or obscene amounts of vampire fetishizing.
>>82284922
Look, I'm a fucking perv and probably as hypocritical as it gets because I look at gross porn and get off to weird shit all the time but it's because of that hyperawareness of it that it rubs me the wrong way seeing it everywhere and ruining what might otherwise be a powerful story.
Like do you want me to enjoy the drama, the humor, the action or be moved by the characters? Or do you want me to oogle and punch my crotch as I masturbate furiously to your dumb ass-shots.
I mean there's already R34 of everything in existence now anyway, why does it NEED to be inside the thing I'm reading and trying to enjoy? If I want to go touch my dick to someone I'll do it later on the internet. If anything it makes me want to do it less because they've jumped the gun and rather then get invested in a character they've already shoved the porn in my face.
>>82284997
>>82285023
The original action figure, the 11'' G.I.Joe, was patented specifically as a type of "toy figure or doll" with articulation.
http://www.google.com/patents/US3277602
They were distinct from dolls at the time, and modern action figures are distinct from the originals. Where the distinction starts getting weird is that modern dolls, like Monster High, have articulation similar to G.I.Joe, so by the original definition they are considered Action Figures.
Toy history is pretty interesting.
>>82285106
>Because they're not allowed to be drawn otherwise
Except that there's lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of comics where they are drawn otherwise?
>Why are you more justified in getting mad from your fan-service being taken away then me having it exist at all?
Because me having it literally doesn't affect you at all, except to the extent to make the focus of your life stomping out any and every trace of a thing i happen to enjoy
> Slavery, Leeches and Snake Oil were a thing once but I don't have to agree with them.
You sincerely consider sexual depictions of women comparable to slavery and fake medicines?
You do realize that sex has been a thing for the entire history of animal existence, and will literally continue to be a thing for the entire rest of human existence?
> it pretty much cements their status as sex objects
Why do occasional sexy depictions of women on comic book covers "cement their status as sex objects", but anal prolapse porn videos are empowering and fulfilling?
ITT: Bingo!
>>82285011
Superman in MOS was made attractive, but not a non-character. Even when in a tub he's not made into a fruitcake, and he's still a written (if badly) character.
And yeah, using Blackwidow is kind of a cherrypick because there are a lot of good chars out there, but they're the ones OP are complaining about.
Someone like Bayonetta is 'sexy' sure, but she's a good character too and making her unattractive wouldn't make her bad and uninteresting.
>>82285033
Real life = wanting to see things in stories
Tell me, do you want to see the PPG twerking? Well, do you?
>>82285056
Obviously a marketing getto exists for both genders in many genres, I don't deny this.
>>82285047
No, it's not unbelievable or wrong to like that. And that'd be fine if there was enough variety. It's not bad to have sexy badass characters, just making them all conform to that role and function sells a bad trend.
>>82285086
Changing work for the future is not retconning the past. We're not getting rid of Golden Age WW's hooker outfit or anything by trying to make designs that are just more standard and non-fanservicey.
>>82285099
> but only if she's sexual in a way that appeals to women?
It's all about presentation, and how agency is handled.
If you sell sex in like, Ghost in the Shell, the MC is still a badass cyborg whose smart and cool and still her own character. That's good.
Same for Kill Bill. Bayonetta, ect.
If you sell sex in "Sucker Punch" where the whole point of the movie is they're hot and you want to fuck them and blahblah it gets dumb. You can sell sex without selling a sex fantasy. And you can write female characters without them being catored towards men. Just as you can ruin them by drawing them like Greg Land-ian porn stars.
>why aren't things men find sexual also allowed
Good question. Why aren't things that men find sexual like adult-diapers, clowns, fur suits, futas, sissys and inflation, just because you hate people who happen to like those things?
>>82285146
>because I look at gross porn and get off to weird shit all the time but it's because of that hyperawareness of it that it rubs me the wrong way
Is it possible that people complaining about minor sexiness on comic covers are all like you - disgusting actually creepy fucked up porn addicts scapegoating other people's mostly innocent conduct for your own guilt and shame?
Have you considered the possibility that your hyperawareness is your fucked up damage to deal with, and not the fault of anyone who occasionally likes looking at a pretty woman's butt?
Have you considered the possibility that there are people who, unlike you, aren't giving themselves brain damage from overexposure to porn and haven't completely and weirdly separated that part of themselves from their normal existence, and are okay with just reading a story that has a small amount of incidental sexiness?
Maybe the entire world doesn't want to go to rule34.sluts.whores and look at triple-dicked Cammy fucking the bleeding hole in chun li's stomach? Maybe they just want to read a short comic book story about Cammy, a sexy woman who gets in fights and does an occasional sexy pose.
>>82285106
why do you think anybody cares about your opinions
>>82285047
It's not hard to believe, because there are women out there who aspire to be both and create both. The issue is when the sexual aspect overshadows the badassery and the same target audience that made those women so great are soon reducing them to fantasies to jerk it off to- this diminishing what made them great to begin with.
Eventually the guys wipe their hands and move on to the next eye piece.
>>82285270
>And yeah, using Blackwidow is kind of a cherrypick because there are a lot of good chars out there, but they're the ones OP are complaining about.
I can't think of any female heroes that are written to be cheese cake in the MCU movies. I might be wrong and I'll admit if I am, but they do female characters pretty well.
>>82285270
>Why aren't things that men find sexual like adult-diapers, clowns, fur suits, futas, sissys and inflation, just because you hate people who happen to like those things?
are you really trying to say that those things don't exist outside of porn?
>>82285290
The only time I can think of black widow in this scenario is
1. Iron Man 2 - Her sexiness is definitely played up
2. The scene where she's tied up in a chair? And them basically beats the shit out of the guys who were demeaning her
3. When she kisses cap?
That's all I can realistically think of.
>>82285290
>Eventually the guys wipe their hands and move on to the next eye piece.
there is literally nothing wrong with this
>>82285270
>If you sell sex in like, Ghost in the Shell, the MC is still a badass cyborg whose smart and cool and still her own character. That's good.
Why is it good for every woman in any piece of nerd entertainment to have to meet some forced definition of "badass" and "smart" and "cool"?
Why is it so wrong for there occasionally to be a woman who's just sexy and feminine and, you know, maybe has a grab bag of other non-masculine endearing personality quirks? Why - other than your ragingly out of control porn addiction - is that so "bad" and "uninteresting"?
When, if ever, does nothing but "badass" and "smart" and "cool" and "badass" and "smart" and "cool" and "badass" and "smart" and "cool" and "badass" and "smart" and "cool" start getting to be just boring and tired?
>>82285270
>Why aren't things that men find sexual like adult-diapers, clowns, fur suits, futas, sissys and inflation
1. why do you think "things that men find sexual" is 1:1 with "things that a very tiny subset of hardcore porn addicts and fetishists" find sexual?
again - have you considered that this outlook has more to do with your out of control porn addiction than what is actually normal male sexuality?
2. again - why do you think i would care about anyone making comics about things like that? If someone were to produce comic book stories that incidentally featured your weird fetish shit, i would be like "well hey, good for them" and then go and read the things that i enjoy.
>>82285391
>2. again - why do you think i would care about anyone making comics about things like that? If someone were to produce comic book stories that incidentally featured your weird fetish shit, i would be like "well hey, good for them" and then go and read the things that i enjoy.
This. It's similar to how I feel about all this talk about trans people these days. Do what you want, I don't give a shit, people who talk shit are pricks, but people who try to make it some hot topic issue need to piss off as well. No one should give a shit either way.
>>82285329
>>82285421
assmad virgin detected
>>82285214
>Except that
I'm aware. Did you read the OP?
The entire argument was "Why aren't there LESS of those unsexy girls drawn for me and MORE sexy drawn! Making all these characters unhot is ruining comics by not pandering!"
>Because me having it literally doesn't affect you at al
Oh, that's rich. But anon, it disturbs my EMOTIONS. And that triggering should be listened to. /Irony
Don't act like you're immune to this, for every badly handled POC and forced diversity character you and /co/ would complain too and demand they need to be stomped out with every trace someone might enjoy.
My nervous case is boobs, yours is brown people and diversity.
>You sincerely consider
Only so far as I'm concerned that I have a right not to agree with something and get fussy whether someone supports something or not.
>Why do occasional sexy depictions of women on comic book covers "cement their status as sex objects", but anal prolapse porn videos are empowering and fulfilling?
Porn is the ultimatum of fantasy and confined sex specifically to it's sole purpose. It's not supposed to be construed as anything to take real meaning, purpose, or information from and you know that hentai tentacle-monsters and asian schoolgirls aren't real and don't matter. They're to dick off and nothing more.
Are you literally telling me you don't consider (sleazy and low as many may say) Comics as no better a medium than porn? That the potential for characters and stories, for messages and ideas is nothing higher than the sum of anal fucking videos? Maybe I'm pretentious snob but what a cynical outlook.
>>82285358
>Why is it good for every woman in any piece of nerd entertainment to have to meet some forced definition of "badass" and "smart" and "cool"?
Because women have to be put on a pedestal anon. They can't have flaws.
>>82285456
Nobody has a problem with nigs in comics. What we have a problem with is characters we like being destroyed to make room for nigs.
I actually think this has been kind of a productive thread, in that I came up with one plausible hypothesis for at least some of the people outraged about this kind of thing.
Namely, that these people are hardcore porn addicts who are into all kinds of sick and fucked up fetish shit, so the rather tame and inoffensive sexuality of cho's covers 1. bores them, because their pron addictions mean they can only be aroused by the sickest and most hardcore filth, 2. reminds them of their own out of control porn addictions, filling them with shame that they then take out on Frank Cho (or whoever).
Basically these people are deeply ashamed of themselves and their sexuality, and because of their own shame, they want all of everyone's sexuality forever walled off into a tiny narrow unlit corner of human existence where they can pretend that it doesn't exist in their day to day "ordinary" lives.
>>82285454
You forgot to add "cuck". If you're gonna insult like an autist you might as well go all out.
Why is anybody talking to this triggernigger legitimately?
>>82285492
Or maybe, just possibly, that there are women who read comics who tire of seeing the same useless trite dominate the industry over and over again?
How did you miss the point of the controversy this badly?
>>82285535
Then they should go and write their own comics for their audience?
>>82285274
Because OP made this thread, hurr durr?
>I made thread to bait people into talking about shit
>Why you talk about shit
>>82285297
The movies are a different case. I was referring to the comics, the fact that she's made asexual (Or atleast unable to conceive) is even a plot point in the second Avengers.
>>82285302
I'm not saying they don't.
But can you really say to me you wouldn't start complaining if they started frequently piling up in your favorite comics, even say on the side or offhand?
>>82285358
It's not about being 'cool', it's about Agency and Good writing. You can make a feminine, sexy, sweet as honey, porn-tits character the star of a series and make it good. There are series like Empowered based on this premise.
But 'can' doesn't mean will, and realistically it doesn't happen. You can also make the most unsexualized, bland character ever and still make it dumb if a cast conforms to that role.
>>82285391
The point---------------->Your head-------->
If it's clear someone is writing something to be fap material, they damn well better do a good job. Porn is a genre, it has standards. So does comedy, action, literature, whatever. I'm speaking from a purely writing standpoint.
Sex can be handled well in a story, or it can be distracting and obnoxious. Art is part of a comic's story as a visual medium so it's important not to mishandle that.
>2
You're acting like it's a Zero-Sum game here and there's no overlap.
Doesn't the possibility there 'might' be something you enjoy or appeals to you on presentation, but the oddities add up and distract you from what you might have enjoyed come to mind? I'm not just talking Kill Bill Foot-fetish stuff, but art being so important it's more like "What if Watchmen was drawn initially as a Furry Comic by an Inflation artist". Even if the story was amazing, you'd say what you said and any potential in the comic would be kill.
>>82285456
>Porn is the ultimatum of fantasy and confined sex specifically to it's sole purpose.
It's really interesting how you don't realize what a complete weirdo you are for thinking that sex somehow needs to be confined to porn and only ever porn, rather than being a general and normal part of human existence
It's also interesting how you seem to consider sexuality to be something inherently disgusting and shameful, such that any hint of it ruins "legitimate" mediums such as comics.
>>82285490
Blatant lies.
Every Marvel thread of the last 3 years has had some bloke baaahing about the newest darkie McSuper or newest minority superhero.
>>82285456
>The entire argument was "Why aren't there LESS of those unsexy girls drawn for me and MORE sexy drawn! Making all these characters unhot is ruining comics by not pandering!"
i mean this is kind of just overt shitposting/trolling on your part
i don't care if you're generally shitposting / trolling because you've at least been interesting but if you're going to just do "lol i'll pretend OP is saying the opposite of what he actually said" then idk congrats on finding a way to be super boring i guess
>>82285552
They do, you just don't hear about them since their comics don't target audiences who rake in cash.
The point is that big time artists should strive to create appealing comics targeted toward both genders and not just for guys oogle at. Yeah, women can be objectifying as hell, but its nowhere near the spectrum of how comics have catered to the tastes of dudes.
>>82285492
Have you considered the possibility that some people just like to enjoy things and like different things? I think that can be the simplest line of reasoning for this debate.
Changing art and characters to be more sexy in a visual space is part of the work.
That's paramount to an author going from writing their Novel proper, to spending paragraphs to pages describing someone's assets and how hot they are, in a non-pornographic or romance story.
Have you considered that people, like me, who like and accept both fun Entertainment and Porn want to see them excel and not be ruined by authors who don't know what they're doing and destroying both?
I mean, it's not like I haven't seen Porn ruined by people trying way too hard to tell a story or narrative at all.
>>82285621
>They do, you just don't hear about them since their comics don't target audiences who rake in cash.
Capitalism ladies and gentlemen.
>>82285507
So let me get this straight, you just came to this thread to circlejerk repeatedly and samefag about your opinion that everyone else shares concerning how terrible it is that any female character be made unsexy?
>>82285610
besides Kamala every minority superhero is just a legacy hero getting BLACKED
>>82285590
>You're acting like it's a Zero-Sum game here and there's no overlap.
haha, you're pretending you don't know what a zero sum game is now, lol, real good troll bro, you sure trolled good
> I'm not just talking Kill Bill Foot-fetish stuff
So you consider kill bill's foot fetishism non-distracting, but you consider cho's mild all-fours pose unforgivable?
Please stop trolling this obviously and try to find a way to be interesting again.
>>82285621
>>82285621
>The point is that big time artists should strive to create appealing comics targeted toward both genders and not just for guys oogle at.
except
>their comics don't target audiences who rake in cash.
women don't buy comics
>>82284814
Didn't they do market research recently that said women were about half the comic audience? Especially with the popularity of the Marvel movies bringing in even more female fans. The demographic of the target audience has really expanded.
>>82284659
You are not allowed to enjoy.
>>82285456
Holy shit fuck off dude.
>>82285652
So why does kill bill's foot fetishism not "destroy" the story, but frank cho's butt pose does destroy the story (of the comic you haven't read yet)?
>>82285735
>dude
>>82285599
Please, I'm not some ubber autist whose going to get all High-Lit on you, but genre blending aside have some common sense. Know what you're doing.
Even James Joyce wrote the most ridiculous sex scene in Ulysses, and Greek myths and stories were full of orgies and fucking nonstop. This isn't about the narrative conventions but the medium they're displaced in.
Don't you consider the art important to a story? The aesthetics, the choices and character design? Don't they affect how you relate to it, your emotions and so such? I'm saying whether you write a porno scene or not, making entire characters coded as porn star regardless carries implications. And if you're just ignoring those implications because of fan-service and stupidity you're De-valuing the effects and success that you might've had otherwise.
Refer back to my "Watchmen but all the characters are replaced with Furries" example.
>>82285456
You need to kill yourself soon.
>>82285686
Women are more likely to buy comics online, through the artist's own domain.
Also, you cannot deny the rise in female readership is growing.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/18/female-comic-book-readers-women-avengers-a-force
>>82285691
>Didn't they do market research recently that said women were about half the comic audience?
That's the same kind of research that says that women make up 50% of the gaming market. They buy different things.
>>82284922
I'm pretty sure nobody has said that they don't want nerds to never ever ever ever get a boner. They're just tired of how prevalent it is.
>>82285620
>why do people get this angry about anything sexualized marketed to nerds?
Tell me what about OP I misread?
Goddamn it how can you chums be so thick.
Drawing Squirrel girl like a Pornographic stripper with DD boobs is just as distracting and revolting to me as if she was drawn with Downs and tumblr-tastic art (Which she was), or re-designed like she belonged on someones Deviantart page.
The difference is people here are willing to disregard one of those.
>>82285747
I don't really understand this harping on Watchmen with Furries when Blacksad is a highly acclaimed comic.
>I don't like this thing you like!
>Change it for me so I'll like it!
>>82285492
i think it's a mix of this, plus good old fashioned hatred for nerds
After all, TumblrAnon has made it clear that the in-your-face foot fetishism in kill bill isn't "distracting" and doesn't "destroy" the story.
It's pretty clear that he finds this okay because kill bill is targeted to the sorts of tumblr hipsters he feels are entitled to be sexual. As well as created by Quentin Tarantino, idol of tumblr hipsters, and so if The Quentin likes it then it must be legitimate.
Conversely, frank cho's mild butt pose is targeted toward the sort of dorkish uncool men who like and enjoy comics, and allowing them to enjoy a bit of sexuality distracts him and destroys everything, because it forces him to think of nerds enjoying sexuality, and he really, truly hates nerds.
>>82285783
>is just as distracting and revolting to me
>to me
>to me
oh no, somebody has to stop this travesty! A woman has been insulted!
>>82285783
hahahaha, pro trolling again bro
you really trolled me good, hahahaha
>>82285801
>he
it's either a girl or a nu-male. Let's be honest here.
>>82285686
>>their comics don't target audiences who rake in cash.
>women don't buy comics
I already addressed this up here
>>82284940
The problem is circular you doofus. Who would want to draw comics where they're depicted like cum-rags readying to go licking their anuses every other panel?
They won't buy comics because blahblah and thus standard won't change.
This is an oversimplification of course. Woman don't buy comics generally, and all the comics marketed towards them are pretty bad. (The manga market fairs much better then the western counterparts) The problems for this have more to do with the Cape-shit ghetto medium rather then sexualification as a whole, Manga has different genres. Western comics are for Capeshit.
>Muh archie
Fuck off
>>82285747
>Even James Joyce wrote the most ridiculous sex scene in Ulysses, and Greek myths and stories were full of orgies and fucking nonstop.
right, and you're okay with that, just like you're okay with tarantino's foot fetish
but you're against cho's mild butt pose.
please, explain why the former is okay, but the latter "distracts" and "destroys"?
>>82285817
Waiting for it
>>82284701
What, like every male superhero ever?
>>82284659
Because the internet gives a bigger platform to those who ten years ago would've been ignored. You're always going to have white knights; people who insist on still fighting the feminist sex wars. The argument against Manara's cover is the idea that female characters exist to titillate or motivate the male heroes. Historically this has been true, but the cover became a symbol. Cho's insistence in not kowtowing to their new orthodoxy chafes at them.
There's nothing inherently wrong about the cover or drawing sexually attractive people. In fact, that's the point of cape comics: they're a male escapist fantasy where every hero is buff and all the women are gorgeous. Again, is this wrong? No. However, many women don't share in this fantasy and they resent the lack of stories that appeal to them and the fact that most heroines are just scenery in one way or another. Actually the same argument has been made by comic fans for a while: look at how Peter Parker's character growth was stripped away so the writers could revert back to a (literally) swinging bachelor?
Nobody really ever makes this point because the loudest voices on both sides don't talk to each other - they talk at them and attack strawmen.
tl;dr - It's a symbol but people are inarticulate and stupid so you'd never know it.
FWIW - Supergirl does a good job of balancing eye candy with plot. Yeah it's a little preachy and all the women are gorgeous but they're not overtly sexual. Even Lucy moved past her role as rival for James' affection. Ironically however, James hasn't and his only role all season was to be Kara's crush.
>>82285838
God damn. Handlebar mustaches barely worked for Old West saloon bartenders. Why would anyone think they would work when contrasted with a modern aesthetic?
>>82285681
So you're saying that if I put one Diapered Vampire-Furry in your favorite comic, that's it you're done? You're okay ignoring it and not getting mad, just gonna be chill and never read it again?
>So you consider kill bill's foot fetishism non-distracting, but you consider cho's mild all-fours pose unforgivable?
The foot fetish shit shows up for like 5, maybe 10 seconds max throughout the whole movie dingus. That'd be like for a panel or two in comic time. The character designs in a story you have to see throughout the ENTIRE story that they exist in. That was OP's complaint.
>>82285877
because it's "quirky"
>>82285735
Wow great argument wait I've got a better one
>>>/Fuckoff/
>>>/tumbr/
>>>/TouchingMyDicktoWatchmenFurries/
Thanks anon I'm now a shitposting genius.
>>82285742
5 seconds of feet =/= entire character designs/art styles
>>82284814
Plenty of women buy comics.
>>82285329
Go fuck yourself.
>>82285900
yeah
but
you really should consider that tumblr one tbqh
>>82285879
>The character designs in a story you have to see throughout the ENTIRE story that they exist in. That was OP's complaint.
haha, you're still trolling that you haven't read op, hahahaha, good troll bro, haha
>>82285763
Give this man a mensa test already.
>>82285900
>entire character designs/art styles
Isn't the design and art in Street Fighter mostly the same as it was?
>>82285905
>Plenty of women buy comics.
well then they are obviously voting with their wallets, so why should companies listen to a bunch of keyboard wielding harpies over their consumers???
>>82285900
>5 seconds of feet =/= entire character designs/art styles
sure, in that kill bill's "5 seconds" of feet are in the movie, and cho's designs and art styles are in his personal fanart that he sells on commission and isn't in any actual comic, except for the one and only one comic that has put his work on one of their covers (and not the interior art, at all)
So again, why does cho's not-in-comics fanart + 1 comic cover upset you so much, when quentin tarantino's history of inserting foot fetishism into every single movie he produces is okay?
>>82285905
>Go fuck yourself.
#triggered
>>82284659
Good god. Remember when progressives rushed to defend Hustler's right to publish offensive material back in the 90s? What the hell happened.
>>82285784
I haven't heard or read from that.
Probably because it's a fur people comic.
>>82285785
Yes anon that is OP's chief complaint. Good job.
>>82285801
What a bizarre and stupidly obtuse comparison. Can you seriously not tell the difference between one girl wearing a catsuit, but still being a character in her own right, and one whose purpose is literally to oogle her tits and ass and look sexy but serve nothing else for the story?
>>82285948
The times changed is what happened. Better start catching up.
>>82285817
>>82285832
>>82285838
Congratulations on graduating middle school your PhD will await you someday pubes!
>>82285856
I don't but I don't care about Ulysses. If I did read more literature, I'd think an entire chapter reading 'Booty booty booty booty tits tits tits tits booty and then more fucking Booty booty booty booty' would be distracting as shit.
Actually why even stop there? Just grab stickers of woman from palyboy and plop them right over the words in the story I'm trying to read and enjoy, yeah that about levels it up.
>>82284659
Thanks based mods for letting me do this thread and not deleting it!
boring troll is boring now, but before that he was pretty interesting and i got some useful ideas on this topic!
>>82285948
progressives became the new fundamentalist christians. Or worse even. Pin up artists of the 40s and 50s didn't get nearly as much shit for drawing sexy ladies as they would get nowadays.
>>82285270
>Someone like Bayonetta is 'sexy' sure, but she's a good character too and making her unattractive wouldn't make her bad and uninteresting.
projecting so hard
fat and ugly chicks can't relate to sexy characters so they want them to be drawn ugly and fat too
why don't you let it inspire you? 85% of males in comics have aesthetic physique, but you don't see men complaining... Some ignore it and some hit the gym
literally who in the real world cares about *fictional* character's depictions
>>82285986
>pubes!
>he's literally just sticking random naughty words onto the ends of sentences now
>>82285954
>Can you seriously not tell the difference between one girl wearing a catsuit, but still being a character in her own right, and one whose purpose is literally to oogle her tits and ass and look sexy but serve nothing else for the story?
There's definitely someone in this thread having that problem.
>>82285954
>I haven't heard or read from that.
then you sound pretty uninformed 2bqh familia
>>82285909
Well Meme'd 4gagger XD :! >< !!!
>>>/reddit/
>/YourDick/
>>82285926
Vidya have their own issues.
Not touching that cancer with a 10 feet poll
>>82285941
When did I say that thing you mentioned upset me? I don't know what that is and don't care. It could be pinup art postered in the back of the comic and that's, a different issue of a similar topic but not what we're discussing.
If it gets in the way of the story and the author cares more about raking in the Titty-Bucks then writing a good story that's cause for concern. Same with anything else, whether it's tumblr art or SjW-Pandering, ect.
Let's not forget how fetishized men are by women here. Look at the yaoi market, how every pairing of men that incidentally appear on screen are shipped in the most obnoxious way possible. Men just appreciate sexy women art quietly, and you dont really see them smashing them with every other women character present.. They dont create bizarre cults over them and insist that Steve and Tony are the hard homos and ignoring their canon straight relationships. Not to mention the fact in most cases that neither character has shown the slightest hint of being homosexual.
>>82286008
>Pin up artists of the 40s and 50s didn't get nearly as much shit for drawing sexy ladies as they would get nowadays.
Yeahh, probably had to do with the fact that women were more like dolls/property back then.
>>82285970
They're regressing to what evangelicals and christfags were doing back during the bad old days of the CCA.
The Anglosphere have this bizarre puritanical and repressed interpretation of feminism, because literally nobody will give a shit about seeing the female form in Italy, France, or Spain. And god forbid if someone is exacting sexual pleasure in a way that you don't personally approve.
>>82286000
>I posted a thread to get replies and tell them they're wrong stupidly aren't I Archimedes heir
>>82285610
no, bring new heroes if you want to push diversity, not a fem thor out of the blue.
black heroes and women in comics has been around for decades.
and, you SJW comic will flop anon, because the people interested in buying those aren't the tumblr crowd.
>>82286019
>literally who in the real world cares about *fictional* character's depictions
Why don't you enjoy The Amazing Squirrel Girl then?
>>82286020
>he
also that's classic tumblr insult techniques. They won't call people real insults, like fag or retard, because they're "demeaning." Instead they use cutesy playground talk like "piss-baby," "shit-lord," and "pubes."
FYI, r/shitredditsays/ is a very active SJW nest that proudly states that they regularly raid 4chan, so you should learn to identify Tumblr tactics to spot them. They're really common on the "popular nerd hobby" boards like /co/, /v/, and to a lesser extent /tg/. They're on /qa/ too but you rarely find them elsewhere.
>>82286041
But we're not discussing fetishized men on the internet, we're discussing fetishized women on the big market which depends on these images for revenue. You're not gonna see some tumblerina's shippy fanart in theaters.
>>82286041
I'm sorry, when did Western artist capture into the Yaoi market dumbshit? Tell me about this breakthrough of Captain America and Batman Yaoi that's top selling on the shelves now. Show me the sales for these issues.
>>82285864
Not that it matters, but this was /thread.
>>82286044
Is this really what you people believe?
>>82286075
the same reason I don't like DeadPool, tryhard metahumor and plot armor
I give 0 fucks how a character looks
>>82286081
Why is shitlord okay when "lord" implies gender?
>>82285621
>The point is that big time artists should strive to create appealing comics targeted toward both genders
no?
you won't see me bitching because sex an the city was created with women and gays as the main target audience.
why people can't have their shit witouth being invaded by other's ideology?
try to do a sex and the city with a whole male cast you faggot, i dare you.
>>82286089
Why does that even matter? People enjoy lewds, both men and women. Don't be a spoilsport.
>>82286083
since when do sexy / sexualized women count as fetishized?
>>82286097
>you people
It's ok, anon, you can say it.
>>82286094
>approves of supergirl
>/thread
>>82286083
>You're not gonna see some tumblerina's shippy fanart in theaters
You will see all kinds of shirtless buff men on daytime TV and soaps. And yet, I don't see anyone getting buttblasted over it.
>>82286089
My point is that both genders appreciate seeing a sexualized image of the other gender, but honestly? It seems women get way more vulgar about it. Pinup art is usually very tasteful and more about sensuality then sexuality. Cho isn't drawing these women open legged and chained to a bed. They just have a slight playful tease.
>>82286103
I don't really know, but it's probably because the only time shitlord is used is when it applies to males. I don't think I've ever seen them use it on a girl.
>>82286050
Look you dumb cunt you're conflating a whole host of shitty issues and ideologies and projecting so hard you might as well be fucking your anal walls in the ass with that bit of rhetoric.
I don't. Give a fuck. If there's porn.
Just keep it out of my comics.
Tell a story dumbasses.
If you want to draw latex babes and melon-sized titty monsters, go ahead and try. Anime does it, manga does it, vidya tried to do it. But the moment you cannot handle your dick and start ripping it off and bleeding the semen on the page you've wavered any right for me to give a shit.
And maybe that's want you want? Then fine, hire Geoff Johns and Greg Land and screw writing, make porn works. But don't expect people to care when that sort of thing has no currency or staying power.
>>82286158
any idea when you americucks will stop with this SJW shit?
one year? two more?
>>82286104
>try to do a sex and the city with a whole male cast you faggot, i dare you.
I'd rather not do anything else in fear of rupturing one of your arteries in your rage. But sex in the city is a pretty good example, as it was considered revolutionary regarding the era it was brought in where women were inherently sexual and not tied down by marriage. The issue is that you're claiming comics belong to men and women shouldn't invade it. Such a large medium should be enjoyed by both without it being overshadowed by pandering to one side.
>>82286083
>we're discussing fetishized women on the big market
no, we're discussing sexualized women in four pieces of fanart + a video game tie in cover
( like >>82286131 points out, not all sexuality is fetishistic - just, y'know, yours )
>>82286169
When based Putin usurps the position of PotUS.
Then the age of feminism and degeneracy will be over.
>>82286161
>my comics.
you must be pretty new if you are talking shit about classic comics
>has no currency or staying power.
yeah, whor or black spidey are here to stay you dumb fuck
>>82286103
because they hate men
i'm pretty sure they invented "pisschild" to deal with the fact that "lord" isn't derogatory enough, though
>>82286169
Hey don't blame us all for this. We're trying to get rid of it too.
The PC culture in the 90's sort of died off after a while so hopefully they'll burn themselves out again soon.
>>82286144
The anon I was referring to meant seeing gay couples of popular superheroes getting hot and heavy on the big screen, not of general buff guys. And honestly, correct me if I'm wrong, but I always figured it was other men who reinforced the whole "not buff = a useless lard ass with no sex appeal".
>>82286161
If you don't like comics with sex appeal, then don't buy them.
Don't sperg out and force your tastes on others.
>>82286104
>why people can't have their shit witouth being invaded by other's ideology?
First of all did a chimp fuck your skull because your grammar is atrocious and secondly an ideology is always dominant. The irony of what you're saying is so thick you could drown in it.
You're basically saying
>Why cannot comics be made for men, be made for meeee! How dare you like something I like!
And I'm not saying it's up to any individual artist to be forced to change their work or fear the censor. It's a shaky road that way, but trends are trends and I'm just refuting OP's complaint.
>>82286150
I'm not doubting that men and woman are equally pervy, but there's a time and a place. If you draw men with Minotaur dicks and pseudo-bara porn expect it to match up with what you're reading or just flake off.
>>82286178
>should be enjoyed by both without it being overshadowed by pandering to one side.
ok, now that we established how stupid you are lt's go again, very slowly.
it is a large medium, so you can create content for BOTH parts, not necesarily in the same product, you can do stuff for men and for women (protip, women won't buy comics).
again, push for a version of sex and the city with a male cast, but you can't do that, right?
you just want so shit on the evil men media.
>>82286169
It depends on how fast the movement eats itself alive.
I always find Americans' crusade against sexual stuff to "legitimize" their art funny, because Europe is always viewed as a center of high art, and they never get tired of sex and nudity.
>>82286214
Pot calling the kettle black. The irony, it brews so sweet with your retardation. And ends on a whistle of a note completing the siren of an imbecile.
If you don't like comics that don't pander to you then don't buy them you dumb cunt. Don't whine like a bitch about not having it your way and force your tastes on me.
>>82286178
>Such a large medium should be enjoyed by both without it being overshadowed by pandering to one side.
so you agree that comics should stop pandering exclusively to SJWs and should allow a small amount of pandering to straight men as well?
>>82286228
Are you the same anon who keeps saying "women don't/won't buy comics" over and over in this thread? I already provided a link stating otherwise >>82285764 here
I guess a male sex in the city would consist of five guys gossiping about their sex lives, going into full detail of their romantic trysts over lunch and having midlife crises eps...I mean, would you watch that?
>>82286222
>your grammar is atrocious
if you didn't notice english is my second language my nazi friend, but let's keep going.
> ideology is always dominant.
yes, and i don't want yours in my comic.
don't read it or write your own shit.
let's change every book written so far so they can appeal to how you see the world, shall we?
>>82286222
>>Why cannot comics be made for men, be made for meeee! How dare you like something I like!
And yet your ilk doesn't seem to mind when comics are made specifically for them though. Like that morbidly obese superheroine. See, this is the problem, you are perfectly fine with being pandered to, but you go batshit insane when other target demographics are being pandered to and worst of all, you are too dumb to even realize the hypocrisy in all of this.
>>82286229
What can you expect from a country founded by people who sailed across the globe to avoid the anything goes debauchery of Elizabethan England?
>>82286228
>it is a large medium, so you can create content for BOTH parts, not necesarily in the same product
No we cannot. Because autistic dumbfucks like you scream and cry and bludgeon your heads to the walls when something isn't made specifically for you. You're incapable of even handling the very idea.
> (protip, women won't buy comics)
Okay so you're trolling and retarded got it.
>>82286272
Lazy bait.
>>82286279
>a small amount
You're right, Anon. I can't remember the last time a big time comic pandered to straight men...jesus, it's been ages.
>>82286286
>I mean, would you watch that?
maybe, who knows, i don't hear you bitching for my right to see a more inclusive version of a product created specifically for women, are you?
We should remake pretty woman too, with inversed roles, because that was written for women in mind as the audience.
the point is that the market appeals to both sides, but no one wants all the stuff mixed (except for people like you) because in case you didn't notice women and men wants different things in their media.
>>82286286
I'm pretty sure Entourage would be this show.
>>82286325
any time they try it's met with controversy and protest. just look at this Cho debacle
>>82286301
>No we cannot. Because autistic dumbfucks like you scream and cry and bludgeon your heads to the walls when something isn't made specifically for you.
That's because you people never actually create anything for yourself, you only ever infiltrate and take over already existing characters and story and then you have the audacity to get mad at the original audience when they don't like it.
>>82286301
>when something isn't made specifically for you
create your own tumblr content, stop fucking with stablished characters.
it's not that hard to understand.
>>82286279
>and should allow a small amount of pandering to straight men as well?
THEY.
HAVE ALWAYS.
PANDERED TO YOU.
Holy shit.
This is like a niggerass bitch whining to a cop "Heyyy maybe you can sodomize us a little more and share some of those rarely won beatings from the white boys over to my black ass."
>>82286290
>don't read it or write your own shit
Okay here's where your retardation shines again. Don't read what, 'Your' comic? What, the comic that you wrote? That you own, I didn't know you were a comic author. Great, we got Dobson here fuckos! You don't want me reading 'your' comic huh?
Oh wait shitstain you didn't write it and neither did I. So who the fuck are you to tell me what I can and cannot read?
>let's change every book written so far so they can appeal to how you
It does appeal to me already, sure must be great huh! Must be a lottery of cuntbucket semen cockguzzling dickdrips to get wacked off every day by the assholes and tools huh? Let's take pride and give ourselves a spank right now and demand congratulations for being given everything we want in life already, woo great job! Woops all we accomplished was being huge pieces of shit and killing ourselves.
>>82286295
>See, this is the problem, you are perfectly fine with being pandered to, but you go batshit insane when other target demographics are being pandered to and worst of all
That is LITERALLY the problem you are facing. Also I love how we're both making full assumptions about the other and refuting the arguments in our head that seem to align with that fantasy.
Why even go on an imageboard at all for this anon, honestly? Just open up a Word Doc or something and argue with yourself and imagine the made up lines of code are working with the enemy. Thinking and Reasoning sure is easy when everything conforms to a caricature of reality you believe to exist!
>>82286339
>no one wants the stuff mixed
Well apparently people other than me do, considering the controversy. That's how the market works, dude. It's not a stagnant wheel gathering dust, it's constantly in motion.
Demand changes over time, and the same useless covers of half-naked women won't attract the same revenue anymore. Women want to be included in a way that isn't awkward as hell for them. Do you want a male version of Pretty women? Fight for it, make a big stink of it like women are doing right now.
>>82286286
it's called Entorage
>>82286343
That show was pretty good.
>>82284659
What is with the passive aggressive fuccbois in media lately? Men like booties, deal with it.
I like how the author goes after comic book nerds instead of more gratuitous displays of sex in rap, R&B, or reggaeton. Reminds me of how Peta would only go after women in fur and not bikers in leather, just an observation.
>>82286388
isn't that magic mike?
>>82286399
>entourage
>good
bitch it is fucking embarassingly bad
>>82286364
>>82286385
>>82286388
welp, we lost him/xhe/she or whatever the fuck.
>Fight for it
you should, i don't care about girl movies as you shouldn't give a fuck about what men wants to read.
go fight for "faith", i am pretty sure they are selling a lot of comics with that fatso in the cover
>>82286349
"You people?" Which people, Marvel? DC? Who do I work for anon. Which comics have I created? Which ones have I read and enjoyed and touched my dick over, hmm?
The nutcase conspiracy is /pol-tier pants on head retarded and it's just pathetic that you have to resort to this because a company doesn't give you exclusively what you want and how you want it. That's how spoiled entitled you are and minuscule your ego is.
>>82286363
Create your own Swedish characters barvitzmah, stop fucking with jewish rabbis like a dumbshit and ruining our private pics.
>>82286388
>Well apparently people other than me do, considering the controversy.
you mean a bunch of tumblr trannies bitching about things they don't buy
>>82286385
>That is LITERALLY the problem you are facing.
No, not at all, as plenty of people have explained to you already, we might ridicule your tumblr comics, but we are fine with you having them. The problem is that you don't create your own shit, you shame and bully comic book publishers into changing already existing stories and characters who already have an audience, just to pander to you. And then you naturally get a backlash from that original audience who doesn't like those changes too much.
>>82286407
yeah, except magic mike is made for women too
>>82286364
>they always pandered to you
the comics' purpose and target audience has changed many times over the years, even when speaking about capeshit only
>Don't read what, 'Your' comic?
I think anon meant don't take over beloved characters but make your own
>>82286417
I'm not even baiting, I think you're too pissed to hold a decent conversation at the moment. Maybe jerk off for a bit to cool down.
>i dont care about girl movies
I'll take your word for it.
Faith is cute.
>>82286422
what?
are you drinking anon?
>>82286422
Marvel, obviously.
>>82286423
Women buy comics.
>>82286445
>mfw the only white man is the one they can't get rid of because of movies
>>82286349
this
>>82286417
Tell me about me anon.
You're the genius right! You 'get me', you have all the answers and are a psychic piece of shit who apparently understands everything going on and any of the fuck what I'm talking about. So make my day, "Own me". I'll go full sado on you bro.
No backing out of this now sissytits.
We're entrenched in your ass-cunt so open up. Gonna go full Prop. 8 on this with how close we've clearly come to understanding anything with semblance of sense right now.
>>82284922
>I really want to understand the mindset of people who think this way
They're never going to explain it to you in a way that makes sense because they're not coming from a place of logic and reason, and if you try to ask them to turn their thoughts into something that does sound logical, it will only make them mad because they don't know how to do that and the fact that you don't already understand and agree with them just frustrates and offends them.
https://popcultureuncovered.com/2016/04/18/comics-youve-got-your-diversity-so-why-dont-you-buy-them/
>Out of the top 200 books, that’s 38 titles where the lead is not a white heterosexual male. It’s not perfect, but it’s a much more diverse spread of characters than we had five years ago. (Also worth noting: this list excludes books like Justice League or We Are Robin which include a mixed cast.) Certainly, this is not demographic perfection: “white female” seems to be the dominant category, there’s still a ways to go in getting more Asian- and Hispanic-led books on the market, and religion is seldom seriously represented in comics. But like I said, this is a lot better than five years ago.
>Except. For. One. Thing.
>It’s the sales. A substantial quantity of diverse titles means nothing if they’re plummeting towards cancellation, and many of these books are headed in that direction. Comic books are a remarkably competitive marketplace, and Marvel and DC are businesses first and social justice pioneers second. If a title isn’t selling past a certain point, it will inevitably go and be replaced with the next hot property.
lol
>>82284977
I've been waiting for an excuse to post this.
>>82286443
i am having a conversation anon, you need to polish your debate skills, chimping out won't help you.
>Faith is cute.
good, it's a good seller?
Why do you think that the comic readers want to see what you propose in their media?
>>82286349
I think you're referring to the vast majority of women who prefer to post comics online instead of reaching for a higher market like those of DC and Marvel. I think women are more comfortable with online advertisement, but the issue is there isn't too much room for women in the big leagues.
>>82286451
no.
now tell me how they play videogames in such amount that merging genres will give a boost in the profit of the developers.
>>82286443
You know, this post is just UMADBRO, which comes across really dumb after >>82286364
>>82286455
nice pasta
>>82286479
>>82286474
this
let people vote with their wallets
it's obvious that companies will pander to those with the money
>>82286497
This was literally Google's first result, dude.
>Casual games on cellphones and social media have helped broaden gaming's appeal, with the number of female gamers over the age of 50 increasing 32 percent between 2012 and 2013, the Entertainment Software Association said.
But the average female gamer has played for 13 years, and many are increasingly dedicated. The number of girls and women playing those consoles more than five days a week has soared since 2011, to about 5 million this year, Newzoo said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/17/more-women-play-video-games-than-boys-and-other-surprising-facts-lost-in-the-mess-of-gamergate/
But this is about comics, not video games.
>>82286493
>is there isn't too much room for women in the big leagues.
there would be if they do something interesting.
that Gwenpool shit wasn't drawn by girls?
>(mods pls don't delete i would like to be allowed to have a conversation about this)
so this is how the things are going on sjwchan nowadays huh?
>>82286499
That was my complete intention tho
>>82286479
The best part about the original is that its a double strawman, as its a guy writing what he thinks girls like in order to show up the strawman.
>>82286424
Why is everyone in this world so Daft. Could this site of dolts literally just drop dead already? Let's look at the praxis of all your propositions you had to make just to maintain your argument and see how far off the shittrain we've gotten.
>we
We who? You guys? I'm a guy. Marvel readers, DC? Americans, niggers, homos, Website users? I'm 4chan you fucker. People with a functioning IQ about a coherent threshold?
>tumblr comics
Wow that sure is a fun made up term with absolutely no contours or designation. What tumblr comics, do you want to run down a list of this? I've been thinking about getting into Black Panther, we might need to host an evaluation for this to qualify.
> you don't create your own shit
And you do? And this means what exactly, since we're both stupid fuckers on the internet and obviously not content creators.
>, you shame and bully comic book publishers
>you
You, as in me? 'Me'? I do that? Really, when? Show me the link, the source for these attacks. Show me the tweets and twits and facebooks and whateverthefuck of me doing this, because I certainly don't recall.
>just to pander to you
If comics pandered to me there would be animeseque fetish-fuel stripper magical girl catbitches in dominatrix leotards fighting DBZ style in a story that reads like Lord of the Rings and is more obscene than Bible Black itself. With 300+ LB Muscle-Fat ninja maids, transvestites and traps fighting in the 9 circles of hell.
Evidently that doesn't exist, so where's the pandering anon?
Like I said earlier, this argument has gotten beyond asinine.
>Just open up a Word Doc or something and argue with yourself and imagine the made up lines of code are working with the enemy. Thinking and Reasoning sure is easy when everything conforms to a caricature of reality you believe to exist!
We've lost any objectivity from this debate.
>>82286560
>I'm a guy.
*Nu-Male
>>82286560
>We've lost any objectivity from this debate.
there was never any objectivity. You were seizing up like a psychopath and lashing out at everybody because we didn't want comics stuffed with trannies and niggers.
>>82286462
Anon don't be dense. Everything that you don't agree with doesn't sound logical and reasonable, have you ever considered that you're just dumb?
If you cannot understand that I don't mind porn and comics but don't to be tricked into reading a porno in comics anymore then I do opening up a playboy and getting Batman issues issues, there's no reasoning with you.
>>82286530
dude, that's why i said merging genres, boys will play call of duty and girls will choose candycrush.
if you give the chance a minority will choose a mixed content, otherwise every genre will choose the media that they find appealing.
>>82286479
as some anon pointed out earlier >>82286019
if males inherently have a "power fantasy" and are "empowered" by characters like Thor and Cap, why do females feel put down by characters like Black Widow, WW and Captain Marvel? Do they inherently have an "inferiority" or "objectification" fantasy?
>>82284701
Get a load of Anthony Comstock here.
>>82286506
>Pasta
Where? Show me.
You don't live by reasoning or logic anon, given everything you say follows your own fantasy world where everything you believe is perfectly consistent, but turns out to be wrong. As always.
Like this post for instance, as always.
>>82284890
Nothing else needs to be said. This - >>82284701 - is just a thinly-veneered attempt to justify your displeasure at people enjoying things on their own terms and not the ones you and your social group would like to set.
>>82286600
And what I've been saying is the minority is no longer as such- women and others who want mixed media will become the majority, as it's happened over and over again with entertainment. So there's hardly a point in trying to play gate-keeper to comics that have hardly done anything else besides plaster ridiculous bodies on covers.
>>82286560
>If comics pandered to me there would be animeseque fetish-fuel stripper magical girl catbitches in dominatrix leotards fighting DBZ style in a story that reads like Lord of the Rings and is more obscene than Bible Black itself. With 300+ LB Muscle-Fat ninja maids, transvestites and traps fighting in the 9 circles of hell.
This is such a pathetic and cringy attempt of you trying to fit in by acting like what you imagine the stereotypical male 4chan user to be into it's not even funny, just sad. The very fact you think that people don't immediately see through this is kind of insulting, but probably speaks more to how out of touch you tumblerinas actually are.
>>82286579
>Don't state gender
>SHE
>I'm a guy
>NUMALE KEK KEK /VIDYA/ EPIC MEMES HURR DURR TIME TO FILL MY BRAIN WITH MORE BUTTONMASHING
How does it feel to see everything in black and white and fit the world into tiny tiny boxes that conform to your reality anon?
>>82286560
>We've lost any objectivity from this debate.
some PC wants to change the media and we say we are ok with the current state, if leftists wants to change the media they should create their own content and see what happens, that's the entire argument.
for some reason when we say "you" you actually believe we are talking about yourself and not the part of society you are trying to poorly represent.
>>82286590
>into reading a porno in comics
what do you do when a sex scene happens in a movie, you walk out of the theater?
>>82286540
Yeah it was, so was Saga- and regardless of your opinion of it, it made headlines. So you could say they're starting off good.
>>82285747
>James Joyce
You are ofcourse aware that that specific scene is incredibly mild by our standards and that Joyce book was banned from being printed due to 'perverse content'.
It was literally prosecuted for its content and they tried to censor it. It took a decade to publish because of censoring fucks worrying about the children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_%28novel%29
Written over a seven-year period from 1914 to 1921, the novel was serialised in the American journal The Little Review from 1918 to 1920, when the publication of the Nausicaä episode led to a prosecution for obscenity. In 1919, sections of the novel also appeared in the London literary journal The Egoist, but the novel itself was banned in the United Kingdom until the 1930s. The novel was first published in its entirety by Sylvia Beach in February 1922, in Paris.
In Americe, it took until 1933. Because they're even touchier about Sex.
So fuck off with your Joyce comarison, if your knid had it's way it would never even have seen the light of day.
I don't understand the problem here.
The picture images were done for individual consumption as commissions. Only 1 copy of each exists and only that goes to whomever wants to purchase such a thing.
The Cammy one was directly commissioned by the company Udon for an alternate cover for their Street Fighter comic mini series.
Street Fighter is targeted to a male demographic.
BOOM! Studios didn't hire Frank Cho to do this type of cover for an Adventure Time comic.
Marvel didn't hire him to do this for Captain Marvel or Ms Marvel or Squirrel Girl.
It was created for a specific demographic that's already the core audience for such an image.
How is this bad?
>>82286635
capitalism is the ultimate gatekeeper. We don't even need to do anything, just wait. >>82286474
>>82286560
>Could this site of dolts literally just drop dead already?
and yet here you are
if you don't like it, I'll kindly ask you to fuck right off back to tumblr or reddit or 9gag or wherever the fuck you came from
>> you don't create your own shit
>And you do?
he's already happy with the current comics, why would he need to create new ones
it's you who's trying to take over comics with your SJWness
>If comics pandered to me there would be...
nobody fucking cares, there's plenty of diversity of themes, motivations and characterisation in comics
also, it seems like by comics you mean the big 2, I'm sure there are comics that pander to your retarded fetishes somewhere out there
>>82286587
I started out and stated reasons why I might disagree with sexualification in comics.
The response was predictably
>NO U FROM TUMBLR 'ooowned!' i WIN
With idiots amassing strawmen and shallow arguments from a position of authority they never possessed, on assumptions that only exist to confirm their ideology and allow their superficial presumptions to be true.
Just admit it, you've reached the point where I 'have' to be a She/Xe/NuCuckShemaleOtherkin on tumblr right now, rambling about pronouns and male privilege for your further arguments to make any sense, less you be ranting about nonsense with no ground. And you can do it too, because I'm an anon and anything you want to be true, is, with extra wanting and brain-blinding. Willful ignorance sure is great huh.
>>82284659
>>82286000
>Thanks based mods for letting me do this thread and not deleting it!
We've had multiple bump-limit threads about this topic. Each one has been exactly the same.
>>82284886
/thread
>>82286635
>women and others who want mixed media will become the majority
yeah, good luck with that.
>>82286655
You act like a woman so when you claim to be a guy you're obviously a Nu-Male
> TIME TO FILL MY BRAIN WITH MORE BUTTONMASHING
what the fuck does this even mean? are you having a stroke?
>>82286655
>How does it feel to see everything in black and white and fit the world into tiny tiny boxes that conform to your reality anon?
you tell me.
>>82285056
>right, but barbies are still marketed toward girls, which is sexist towards boys
Oh man, I'm done. You've literally reached a level of autism that you'll never recover from if you truly believe this.
>>82286474
>inb4 tumblerina says this "doesn't count"
>>82286605
Pandering =/= deluding.
Porn can be art. Porn can be literature, and porn can be praise-worthy.
Less so when you're trying to mix it up with other pathetic fantasies however. It's like soiling sugar and chocolate into cheese fondu and cotton candy and sushi and oh god this should all be so good but wow it ends up really fucking gross why did these mix?
>>82286685
exactly, they hired him to draw Hulk but nobody's crying how "objectifying" that is
people just need to realize some things weren't created with them in mind so they should stop trying to change shit just because they don't enjoy it
>>82286272
It's like I'm really reading a Tumblr post on /co/.
1) That's a lot of words, purple prose and simile you've employed in a failed attempt to appear more intellectually-capable than you actually are. Brevity is important in effective communication.
2) Your 'argument', such as it is, makes no sense. You're seeking to disenfranchise everybody besides yourself by demanding that 'porn' be kept out of 'your' comics; for one, a woman's ass in tights is not by any conventional definition 'porn'. God help you if you ever try to read any Eurocomics, you'll have an apoplexy. Secondly, your idea that nudity and sexualisation - in both directions - somehow nullify artistic merit is a conceit so puritanical in its conception as to be laughable.
You live in a free market economy. If you don't like there being any content in comics that you see as 'sexual' in nature, like an 18th-century protestant, then you're very free to vote with your wallet and not buy those comics, and you're also completely free to start your own competing franchise.
Except we all know how that would end for you, because this isn't a communist dictatorship where you happen to be a friend of The Party, and you constitute a tiny minority of wailing, handwringing, deleterious cretins seeking to undo hundreds of years of progress in ensuring freedom of expression in the arts.
>>82286676
then they should work towards that.
you know how do you do a cultural revolution? by creating something better or bolder than the existing media.
PC are just trying to replace the current status quo, they won't consume this media once they achieve their objective and the regular guys won't touch it either now that it changed.
no one wins.
that's why mention that SJW crowd should do their own content, if it is so good it should overcome the media you hate so much in no time.
>>82284701
What a fag we have here. Nerds want this and thats who comics should be.
>>82286744
Not every issue will have people crying over them, you'd have to be an idiot if you think that. If you want, you can start, but I guess you already did by bringing it up now didn't you?
>>82286645
See anon you did it again. You did it AGAIN.
You, the psychic anon have predicted who I am and my tastes and everything about me and already propped up everything on their autistic strawmanning.
Tell me about myself then anon? Show me the enemy. You're so pathetically, disgustingly ignorant and willfully deceptive that you're forcing your perception on me JUST to save face, and you'll never drop the screen in front of you because you're retarded like that and wouldn't even consider for a second that those might be my fetishes and you're actually just stupid and ignorant.
But you mind. You might consider it.
Too bad you won't. Retard.
>>82284984
>Heck I've bought a couple as an adult
Same. Some of them are cool as shit.
Except now that they lost the Disney Princess licence Mattel is rebooting the line to make it more appealing to the segment of the female market they lost.
>>82286772
>Nerds want this and thats who comics should be.
I'm a nerd who loves cheesecake and I wouldn't want to be associated with you with that terrible grammar.
>>82284659
Because jocks got cucked out in the 90s, and now they are trying to do it to us nerds.
>>82286781
>>82286741
Except, you know, when it produces salted caramel or chocolate with spices...
>>82284886
I thought Barbie was actually originally a German porn character or something.
Shit I had to read this horrible story freshman year about a guy who bought a Barbie to jack off into it.
>>82284659
>ITT people getting triggered over other people getting triggered
I mean do people even realize the stupidity going on here? This shit works both ways. Just because something is out there for you to appreciate, doesn't mean someone else can't criticize it. The hypocrisy that people are willing to spout here is downright hilarious. You might say something is art, but it doesn't stop someone from saying whether it's good or bad art.
>>82286791
>My kangaroo fat pouch, where I store male tears
Saved.
>>82286781
please Kurt Cobain yourself
>>82286819
>You might say something is art, but it doesn't stop someone from saying whether it's good or bad art.
no, but if someone tries to change the mona lisa because it looks too white you would tell him to fuck off.
>>82284765
Why do tampon makers alienate potentially half the market? I demand they start manufacturing manpons immediately, even if no-one buys them.
>>82284659
>That pic
My god, I've never seen this amount of passive agressive butthurt concenced into less than 120 words
Seriously though, article is nothign new:
Neo-Puritain Tumblrite upset that people enjoy something xe disaproves of while being incapable of just reading comics they enjoy or create a market for it, it's been the same shit for like 3 years
Buy what you enjoy, recommend it to others, and you'll see more of it; I do it, /co/ (I hope) does it, "Progressives" instead write articles bitching about the lack of appeal to a market which (as we've seen from an article ITT) don't buy enough comics
It's ridiculous how everything lost compartmentalization. Everything must be for everyone. If women don't like men's comics, they should be allowed to have their own comics. But that doesn't mean men should lose theirs.
>>82286838
Except no one is literally doing that. People are just writing shit on their blogs and everyone thinks that's somehow the literal equivalent of censorship. What, people can't say bad things now without someone crying over it like a bitch? I think the SJWs are retarded in their criticisms but that's all they are, criticisms.
It depends it's not a black or white issue.
People who throw in awkward cheesy hot people gyrating around and talking about sex out of nowhere in a mainstream thing when it makes no sense for the story or characters just because it makes them wet or hard, that's irritating.
The occasional sexy pin up is not a big deal though.
>>82286876
>But that doesn't mean men should lose theirs.
Except no one is literally saying that. Problem is, companies like Marvel and DC try to create a brand that's open to everyone. You can't expect to pull off whatever shit you want to do without ruffling some feathers. It's dumb yeah, but it's on them for even trying to appeal to such a wide market.
>>82286881
>Just writing on their blogs
And slandering anyone who speaks out against them. And harassing creators. And attempting to get people fired. And attempting to create lists of individuals guilty of 'wrongthink' to circulate to potential employers.
It's censorship by way of shaming, a bizarre mix of old-fashioned puritanism and new-age Marxism.
>>82286901
>Problem is, companies like Marvel and DC try to create a brand that's open to everyone
That's what I'm complaining about, actually. That's the loss of compartmentization.
>>82286075
because she's shit, her character is shit, her writing is shit, her artist is shit and her design is shit
>>82286657
>>82286693
>he's already happy with the current comics, why would he need to create new ones
So tell me what content you have created?
>it's you who's trying to take over comics with your SJWness
I, a person who doesn't make comics, am trying to take over YOUR comics, which you ALSO didn't create, when I- know what, fuck this. There's no line of reasoning or rationality that will ever contradict your double think.
Annnd I'm done. I concede, you're the dumber cunt. You know what why are you arguing with me, no seriously why? You're so convinced of everything you know and what I think and
I don't even give a shit about the Smutty censorship anymore. I just think it's ridiculous. Do you just go out with random people on the streets and yell at them for arguments they don't uphold and hold them to the opposition like an insane person? You're fucking insane. But I'm stuck here arguing with a literal retard so I too apparently.
And just to show how all knowing you areI've been self-arguing and samefagging both sides the whole time sempi. Great job debating with yourself spergy.
>>82286881
Browbeating someone into neutering their artistic expression is fucked up, and you can't rationalize that away.
>>82286881
>I think the SJWs are retarded in their criticisms but that's all they are, criticisms.
do you even read any comic in the last five years anon?
miles morales? whor?
>>82286881
Yeah that's another thing, people complaining about something on their blog is fine, of course people are free to counter complain too. People trying to stop something from being drawn are a different story.
>>82286920
Damn, you SJWs really are lunatics
>>82286710
>You act like a woman
I'm an anonymous text.
>what the fuck does this even mean? are you having a stroke?
It means you spend too much time playing videogames and sucking your boyfriends cock off.
See what I did there :^)
>>82286920
Wait, this whole thread has been one guy arguing with himself, like Fightclub? Who even gets trolled in that situation?
>>82286941
where are you getting this argument about video games?
