Because God Forbid

That one might decide that constant cheesecake doesn't make a whole lot of sense in a story that is trying to deconstruct gender roles.

Who Else Could Bring Me Out of Hibernation but Joss Whedon?

So.

Now that the first ep is out, I've decided that the thing that is going to bug me most about Dollhouse is people talking about Dollhouse. (irony is my middle name) Well, ok, so I should really know better than to venture into the TwoP forums, but still - who the fuck says this:

[Echo was c]oerced by circumstances, no doubt horribly lied to about what would happen afterwords (as discussed elsewhere I'm SURE the Dolls never actually get "out") but yes it was voluntary.

Dear TwoPer with yet another punny name - Did we watch the same episode? Cuz if we did, you need to learn what the word coercion means and how it affects the legality of agreements and contracts - written and otherwise.

Seriously, the only thing that's going to make me go ew more than the prostitution/rape/sexual slavery angle is people arguing that Echo actually consented to all this. (Based on the little clip we were given at the start of the pilot, anyway. I don't know what the future holds.)

Anyhoo...

as far as the pilot itself...eh. If it wasn't Joss I wouldn't be watching. Or at least not going out of my way to do so. And if that's the reworked pilot, I either really don't want to see the original or really want to see the original.

(From what Joss has said about it, I'm actually guessing the latter, bc the actual pilot is a typical "let me hold your hand and tell you how it's going to be" pilot and I don't think I need that for Joss shows, but I understand why that's the better choice for network TV.)

My biggest complaint is that it didn't feel terribly new and it felt like there was far too much given away in the beginning. Mostly - the bit about how Echo got there should have been kept a secret for at least a few more episodes. Possibly the rest of the season. It would have been much better to find out when Echo did (or maybe just a little before) not when Caroline knew.

Also, the plethora of details about the cop was a bit gratuitous (or maybe it was just the stupid intercut fight scenes). Maybe CM has me spoiled, but I've come to believe that economy is key in character development. All I needed to know about the cop was that he was willing to threaten a not-quite-civvie with a gun despite getting heat from his boss - and I really didn't need that last part beaten to death. Anvils were great for Buffy, Dollhouse feels like it should be more subtle. Really, honestly, a single line would have been much better than a long drawn out pissing contest - multiplied for effect! And it would have given him a chance to save the cat - or something.

That said, the last bit can stay in. That's the way to get them coming back. it could have been done better, but nice start with that there.

Overall, bc of the whole ew factor and the OH GOD WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE SAVE ME FROM FOX'S ANNOYINGLY SEXIST BULLSHIT ADS AND PROMOS THAT FLAT OUT SAY THAT WOMEN ARE WORTHLESS IF THEY AREN'T SEX DOLLS EVEN IF THEY ARE FUCKING SAVING THE WORLD?!!??!!?!?? I probably wouldn't be watching if I hadn't stumbled across this interview:

We wanted to talk about it...human sexuality and how it drives us and why it’s important to us.

And the idea of objectification versus identification, these are all things that I’ve been working on all the time...

...are we actually making a comment about the way people use each other that is useful and interesting and textured, or are we just putting her in a series of hot outfits and paying lip service to the idea of asking the questions.

...I think some things will offend some people, some things will not. There are things in it that I’m not positive I support, and some of the things that bother me don’t bother any of the other writers....part of the point is to look at these gray areas and to see what of this is unique in us, what is it we need from each other, how much do we objectify each other, how much do we use each other, both men and women, and what is actually virtuous.

One of the problems I ran into early on... was [the network] didn’t really want to deal with those issues having bought the show....It’s a classic network problem. You want to evoke this, but then they don’t want to say anything....We’ve struggled with making sure that the show doesn’t, by virtue of playing it safe, become offensive, because the idea of this show was never to play it safe. The idea of this show was always to be in your face about it.

....The idea is to get the audience to look at their own desire, and to figure out what of it is acceptable, and what of it is kind of creepy. In order to do that, we go to a creepy place sometimes, and I will be very interested to see if people find it empowering or the other things. I may have crossed the line. Let’s find out.

I don't know if he's explained all this before and I just missed it, or if Rachel is just a really good interviewer (quite possible), or if the other articles did their best to cut that shit out*, but the fact that Joss is very aware that of the whole prostitution/rape/sexual slavery angle but in fact seems to see it as one of the main themes of the show puts my mind at ease - at least a little bit. As does the fact that he quite aware of the dangers of both selling out and of not selling anything at all. I'm still watching with a critical eye, but I am watching. And very much hoping Joss makes this worth my while.




*The Salon article linked in the TwoP forum, for example, quotes Joss as saying "I believe that prostitution is not, in concept, repulsive," but the interviewer doesn't go back and ask him how that relates to what he said earlier about human trafficking or the question of wether or not the Dolls are coerced. Nor does Joss go into more detail about why he thinks that making the show hot but having less actual sex - as requested by TPTB - is offensive. Without the interview above, it sounds almost like Joss really believes that he his created a sci-fi premise for prostitution without having to deal with the power imbalance of it all - shades of the fundamental problem with "companions." Taking into account the interview above, it sounds more like Joss has taken those critiques to heart (at least a little) and while the Dollhouse is in no way an apology or a concession it is very much a deeper exploration of those issues.

If You Have to Ask.....

...then I'm not sure that I can explain, but I'll try.

I'm not going to waste your time trying to convince you that comments about Palin such as:

Okay, she's a whore who defeats all espectations.

or

There is nothing remotely attractive about Barracuda Girl.

or

NOT hot. ... Plastic. Barbie doll.

are sexist, unnacceptable, and hurt the cause - both yours and mine.

This isn't a feminism 101 post. I'm not going to hold you hand and explain that yes, gendered slurs are gendered slurs and that aiming them at awful people doesn't magically make them not gendered slurs.

But I can understand why some people who only barely passed FEM 101 might be a little confused about certain things. Such as why the following response to "I am striving to be gender neutral when criticizing Palin in general." is absolute fail:

I would like to.

Except that she's trying to help the GOP screw other women out of our rights.

The main problem with this argument is that it is a complete failure of logic - if one considers being "gender neutral" refraining from using sexist slurs. And since the second commentor was also responsible for several sexist comments, including the third one listed above, this does appear to be the case. This isn't the only type of behavior being shoved under the misnomer "being gender neutral" but it is the one where logic fails.

One can certainly criticize Palin for being hypocritical when it comes to women's rights. She's not quite Phyliss Schafly, but there are definitely commonalities between SP and PS, which means there is a lot we can call Palin on.

But to use sexist slurs to do so amounts to criticizing her for simply being a woman, which means complete FAIL for obvious reasons. Obvious as in feminism 101 obvious.

So what makes this slightly beyond feminism 101? Because it's not always obvious what consitutes a gendered slur. While the 'NOT hot" part of the comment is obviously wrong, "Barbie doll." is not always a purely sexist comment. One can give such insults a context that makes it clear that the woman being insulted is being insulted for something that she did, rather than being insulted simply for being a conventionally attractive woman.

One good example of this insult working might be comic fans complaining about their favorite superheroine being turned into a Barbie doll. While slip-ups can - and very often do - still happen in this context, there is at least a foundation for making it clear that the issue is not that she is female or even feminine, but that she is a generic, uninteresting, stock female character; that she lacks the seriousness and strength of personality to be a good superhero; or even just to make snarky comments about the homegeniality and over-sexualization of superheroines in general.

This? was not one of those cases. The only "context" is that Palin is female and pretty. Which means that "Barbie doll." is still a gendered insult in this context. Even though other complaints from the same commentor make it clear that there is substance to the ire directed at Palin, the potentially sexist insults that are said are not at all related to the complaints listed - making them simply gendered slurs. (Except perhaps for "plastic", but that one seems rather out of the blue and only related to the Barbie doll insult itself rather than any of the other complaints. it's possible that I'm missing some of the connections on that one, but, well, see next paragraph...)

Keep in mind that creating clear context is very, very hard. It's really easy to accidentaly turn what should be an insult about someone's unhealthy obsession with conformity to the modern, media driven definition of femininity, into simply another way of saying that girlie stuff sucks. Or add unintended sexist overtones to what was simply an attempt to call someone plastic or fake.

Your right to free speech certainlly allows you to say whatever the hell you want (although, be forewarned: not on my blog), but ask yourself if it makes sense to do so. I'm not going to try to tell you that you catch more flies with honey, because there is just so much that is so very wrong about that "advice." What I will say, however, is that being clear about what you mean is a not a bad thing.

If what you mean is that she's a bitch, then by all means, call her a bitch.

But if what you really mean is that she's a narrow-minded, abrasive, douche just like her running mate - but you are feeling the urge to call her a bitch because it sounds more powerful - you may want to rethink calling her a bitch. Because that's what bitch may mean to you, but to those of us that have been called bitch, usually just because we aren't willing to be doormats or fuckholes, it means something else entirely. And no, we aren't going to give you the benefit of the doubt. (especially when you also discuss how fuckable she is as well) Neither, btw, are the Republicans. Both the ones that will hypocritcally call you on your sexism and the ones that will applaud you for putting the bitch in her place.

Still not sure you are ready to go back out into "the real world" and not be an accidental sexist asshat? Then let's try another example of bad logic:

i think palin's hotness is the issue

if you imagine her as a boring looking dude, you get a fundie with a lightweight resume and a brewing influence scandal

but everybody is blinded by the giant cute

it'll wear off...

Palin's "hotness" - and gender - is very much an issue...in this context. It is not, however, an issue in and of itself. In other words, the issue is McCain's reasons for choosing her, not the fact that she is female and "hot." Statements like this are right on the money (aside from the fact that i hate "hot" as a stand in for sexy)....except when they are used to defend "debates" about whether the debaters would like to fuck her. (which this exactly what this comment was meant to be) It may be useful to debate if her looks are the right kind of looks to get McCain votes (assuming that's even possible). It is not useful, however to simply discuss whether or not you think she is pretty - especially as if this were the most important thing about her that one could possibly discuss.

Now that we've done the warm-ups, we are ready for the trickiest bit: the generic sex jokes. Which, by definition, ought to be non-gendered. Except that nothing is non-gendered about sex in our society. So on the odd chance that you weren't able to make the previous disctinctions yourself prior to coming here (and yet are still willing to listen to advice from me for some odd reason) I will leave you with this one last bit of wisdom:

Stay far, far, away from "generic" sex jokes. At least until this whole post seems like elementary logic to you.

If you do not, you may be the unwitting perpetrator of such idiotic and unfunny slurs as:

Does the governor do anything?

She once had a three-way with Michele Bachmann and a moose.

Seriously people, the only thing funny about that "joke" is the moose part*. And no, I wouldn't have an issue if it were Cheney, Bush, and McCain. (i still wouldn't find it funny, either, but wev) And yes, it makes a difference that these are women we are talking about. Not becuase it will always make a difference, but because you and the media are the ones making the two jokes mean two different things when you all obsess about how fuckable Palin/Hillary is, but whether you'd like to have a drink/dinner with Bush/Obama.




Now, go forth and bring McCain/Palin down! Only now working with the wondrous power of feminism, not against it.



(all quotes are from the thread for this post:

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_08_24_archive.html#2853241893953280348)

*actually, the crack about the moose having the best rack was the funniest part of the whole thread. but that's just cuz i'm a sucker for bad puns

Comment Policy - Or Lack Thereof

I've never felt it necessary to have any kind of comment policy. Mostly because hardly anyone reads this and even fewer people bother to comment.

But this is the second time in as many months that a newbie (in the case of #2, a drive-by, most likely) has left a comment that discusses a woman's looks in a way that is absolutely irrelevant to the point of either my post, their comment, or both.

So, oh wise and benevolent ones that are gracious enough to grant me the honor of your fine words, to you I say:

It's not just that you insult how a woman looks, or that your manner of doing so make you look like a petty high school bully, it's that you say it as if it has any bearing on the worth of her actions or words.

It's not just that you are crude in your appreciation of a woman's looks, nor just that you try to preempt criticism of such behavior (on a feminist blog, no less) by being "cute." It's not even that you think I give a shit, it's that you have the audacity to come to my blog and make it clear that you don't give a shit about anything that I have said at the same time.

I'm hardly above caring how people look. I have the tag "pretty boys" for a reason.

But there are plenty of places where you can discuss to your hearts content whether or not a woman turns you on. Most of the places I have to spend my time in are places where you can discuss to your hearts content who turns you on.

Just in case the "feminism" in the subtitle didn't make it clear - this blog isn't one of those places.

If you want to comment here on how a woman looks, it had better be relevant to the actual post in question*. Otherwise, expect deletion without prior warning.

*gushing about grand dames like Tyne Daly - even if it's include looks - are considered on topic. Comments that subsist of nothing more than "All I know is that Kellie Martin is hot. Hubba-hubba." do not. Especially when the only sentence in the post about Kellie Martin herself is on her acting abilities.

On the Bright Side

It's all so very snark-worthy

"This should be a better world," a friend of mine said. "A more honest one, where sex isn't shameful or degrading. I wish this was the kind of world where say, 'Wow, I'd like to touch your breasts,' and people would understand that it's not a way of reducing you to a set of nipples and ignoring the rest of you, but rather a way of saying that I may not yet know your mind, but your body is beautiful."

I must fail at logic, because I completely fail to understand why saying "your body is beautiful" is massively more complicated than saying something like "Wow, I'd like to touch your breasts."

And I will say, yet again, that if any guy ever comes up to me and compliments me by saying simply "you're beautiful," I will die of shock. Which will be very sad, because he was sure to get my number and/or my first born child otherwise.

We were standing in the hallway of ConFusion, about nine of us, and we all nodded. Then another friend spoke up.

"You can touch my boobs," she said to all of us in the hallway. "It's no big deal."

I'm fascinated by her phrasing here, and how everyone in the group finds this so refreshing. I mean, I'm very much not down with the whole "sex is a special thing that should only happen between two people who are in love!" meme that most of the world pretends to be caught up in, but isn't it a little insulting for her to say that "it's no big deal?" Unless her breasts are completely lacking in nerve endings, shouldn't she have some kind of feeling toward the experience? Otherwise, isn't it just a mini version of pity-sex?

Now, you have to understand the way she said that, because it's the key to the whole project. The spirit of everything was formed within those nine words - and if she'd said them shyly, as though having her breasts touched by people was something to be endured or afraid of, the Open-Source Boob Project would have died...

I agree. Her lack of (stated) desire and the fact that she was making an offer and not a proposal, very much is the spirit of the project, and very much why the project is complete FAIL.

Yet it wasn't a come-on, either. There wasn't that undertow of desperation of come on, touch me, I need you to validate my self-esteem, and maybe we'll hook up later tonight. There was no promise of anything but a simple grope.

Because, of course, when women do come-on's it's because we are desperate. Guys on the other hand, are just being guys. So when they say 'Wow, I'd like to touch your breasts" women should translate that to "your body is beautiful" and not get sidetracked by all the "me/I" statements.

We all reached out in the hallway, hands and fingers extended, to get a handful...They were awesome breasts, worthy of being touched.

Which raises the question of which breasts are not worthy of being touched, and how the poor women attached to such breasts feel about that.

And life seemed so much simpler.

Yeah, not having to think about privilege is like that.

In this moment, all of the societal restrictions had fallen away, and we discovered an eBay-like need: We liked to express adoration of her body, and she liked the compliment of being desired. It wasn't a one-way flow; it was a stream of compliments being passed back and forth as we explored that small zone of her body, a My God, these are beautiful breasts you have, along with the backstream compliment of Thank you, you're worthy of touching them.

Dear idiots, the issue is not your worthiness, but her desires. You can pretend all you want that you are living in a brand new world, but if she says you can touch her breasts because you are worthy, oh great one, and not because she wants you to, then it's really just the same old world. As it usually is.

Plus, "an eBay-like need"?? wtf is that even supposed to mean?

It could have been a base lechery. But instead, it was sexual desire made simple. We knew we couldn't go further, but being allowed inside this area of restricted access with nothing more than a question was somehow amazing.

After all, usually women make using their bodies all complicated and shit.

Oh and wtf is up with confusing desire and pleasure? Dudez, the desire was made simple by skipping from compliments to expressing your id. It's the getting of sexual pleasure, not desire, that you are talking about here.

We stood there afterwards, a little shocked

Do I really have to say the obvious?

Then someone else spoke up in the same tone of voice:

"You can touch mine, too."

Well, at least this time there was no "it's no big deal." Although, I must ask, why no "Can I see your cock?" Cuz that's totally what I would have said instead.

And my God! We all reached out like zombies trying to break through a door to get to those breasts.

Yeah, no desperation here.

And it wasn't getting any worse! We weren't degenerating into an orgy....

Isn't that a direct contradiction to the above sentence? Or maybe he thinks zombies are sexy.

Nobody was trying to pull off a bra or suck on a nipple; we'd been given access to a very special place that only lovers usually touched, and why would you be so crude as to try to push the boundaries of that?

You mean men can be expected to respect personal boundaries? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

No really. After reading all of this, I kinda am.

And every girl in that hallway was then asked the question: "May I touch your breasts?" They considered, and said yes. And we all did.

Wow, no pressure there.

And my Lord, I'd had experience in breasts in my time, but having so many compared right next to each other was beautiful. One of the reasons I love sex is because every body is so different, and the differences in size, and skin tone, and nipple sensitivity, and bras - bras were a big deal in how a boob felt - were highlighted....

Yes, every breast is different, but only some are worthy of being touched.

We went back to some of the first open-sourcers, eager for comparison. "Can I touch them again?" "Sure!" And the feel-ups continued.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. As others have painstakingly pointed out, open-source is about who owns the rights, not who ultimately uses the software.

I felt the terrors of high school washing away from me. It could be this easy. Just ask!

Apologies, but I really must quote CM on this one:

"I wish all our unsubs tacked their profile up on the wall like this."

Unresolved issues much?

And then the real magic happened. Because a beautiful girl in an incredibly skimpy blue Princess outfit strode down the hallway, obviously putting her assets on display (the thin strips of her clothing had to be taped to her body to stay on), and we stopped her.

Oh dear god, no.

"Excuse me," the first, very brave girl asked. "You're very beautiful. I'd like to touch your breasts. Would you mind if I did?"

Ok, now I'm really confused. If the idea is that people should take "I'd like to touch your breasts" to equal "You're very beautiful" then why the hell did she say both? Methinks someone isn't being very honest with themselves.

We held our breath. We didn't want to offend.

Yet, they "didn't want to" enough to not take the risk of doing so, obviously. How daring of them to risk her feeling humiliated so that they could cop a feel.

This could go wrong, collapsing and turning us into cruel lechers who'd make her feel uncomfortable and shamed of who she was....

You know, most people get past the "it doesn't happen unless I see it" stage at about age 3.

A tip for all dudez (and dudettes) thinking of trying this. Her saying that you are lechers is not what turns you into lechers.

She thought for a heartbeat, sizing us up. But there must have been something honest and trustworthy in our eyes that promised that we wouldn't get out of hand... Because after a moment, she smiled and said, "Sure!"

Again with the worthiness. And the idea men behaving is shocking. And the lack of awareness of risk analysis. (She decided that they were trustworthy, not that what they promised was worth the risk of what might happen. And god forbid we mentioned the possibility of peer pressure or the risk analysis often involved in saying "yes" when you want to say "no.")

The first girl touched respectfully.

The repetition of "respectful" is really making me wonder why such respect is considered so noteworthy to the author.

And reported that they were glorious.

More than any other part of this post, this sentence makes me want to beg the writer in question to never write anything ever again. Please. With sugar on top.

.... It wasn't that she was a piece of meat to be felt up, but rather that a living person that we did not know had voluntarily lowered the barriers that separate us and allowed us in... And we were so grateful that we were showering her in pure adoration.

You know, I might actually believe this if I thought for one nano-second that any one of them asked her how she wanted to be touched, rather than if they could touch her or how she didn't want to be touched. But since I'm fairly certain none of them did, I fail to see how any of this is adoration.

It was exciting, of course. I won't deny it was sexual.

Except for her, of course.

But it was a miraculous sexuality that didn't feel dirty, but clean.

Dare I suggest that it's because you weren't bothered by thoughts of her pleasure? Plus, your issues are showing again. You might want to take care of that. And no, not caring about how others feel is not the way to do so.

Emboldened, we started asking other people. And lo, in the rarified atmosphere of the con, few were offended and many agreed.

Which makes it all good, cuz that's what a democracy is about, right? As long as most everyone's ok with it, it's ok to do it.

And they also felt that strange charge.

You know, it might have been just you. I doubt that most SF fans are quite as repressed as the stereotype says they are.

Or, it could have just been the static electrcity

We went around the con, asking those who we thought might be amenable - you didn't just ask anyone, but rather the ones who'd dressed to impress - and generally, people responded. They understood how this worked instinctively, and it worked.

Gee, there's no rape apology lingering under all that. No siree.

And on a completely unrelated note, I wore oversized t-shirts all through high school because I was all about being comfortable at that age.

By the end of the evening, women were coming up to us. "My breasts," they asked shyly, having heard about the project. "Are they... are they good enough to be touched?"

I just can't snark about that. It's just too sad.

And lo, we showed them how beautiful their bodies were without turning it into something tawdry.

I'm glad you've finally figured out how to do that, but I still don't think a public space is quite the right place for it.

Oh, and I thought I'd give you fair warning that I'm trying to find a way to ban the letters l and o from the internet.

We talked about this. It was an Open-Source Project, making breasts available to select folks.

Really, there is no end to his lack of understanding of the idea of open-source.

(Like any good project, you need access control, because there are loutish men and women who just Don't Get It.)

Irony, my good friend! So nice to see you.

And we wanted a signal to let people know that they were okay with being asked politely,

For their sake, of course.

so we turned it into a project:

The Open-Source Boob Project.

At Penguicon, we had buttons to give away. There were two small buttons, one for each camp: A green button that said, "YES, you may" and a red button that said "NO, you may not." And anyone who had those buttons on, whether you knew them or not, was someone you could approach and ask:

"Excuse me, but may I touch your breasts?"

Ok so, I'm going to give the Douche the benefit of the doubt and assume that people with the latter buttons were left alone. But still, what is the point of the "No!" buttons?

Oh, silly me, I keep thinking that he's being sincere in trying to make this easier for the gropees. No, it's always all about the gropers.

And if you weren't a total lout - the women retained their right to say no, of course - they would push their chests out, and you would be allowed into the sanctity of it. That exchange of happiness where one person are told with gropes and touches that they are desirable and the other is someone who's allowed to desire.

Again, desire =/= sexual pleasure. Which, in turn =/= access to other's bodies. There is a connection, yes. But they are not all the same thing.

For a moment, everything that was awkward about high school would fade away and you could just say what was on your mind. It was as though parts of me were being healed whenever I did it, and I touched at least fifteen sets of boobs at Penguicon.

Unresolved issues. Drink!

It never got old, surprisingly.

Surprising? In what way is that surprising?

Some women didn't want to. That was fine.

Wow. Good to know.

We never demanded anything of anyone.

You know, despite the obvious douchbaggery involved here, it never actually occurred to me that any of them did (explicitly). The fact that he felt the need to clarify that makes me wonder, however.

And if you didn't want to put yours up for the Project but you wanted to touch, well, that was fine, too. It was simply for folks who felt like being open.

Open to what, exactly? Other than being reassured that I am worthy enough to be groped, I'm a little confused as to what I'm supposed to be open to.

It was a raging success at Penguicon.... And there haven't been any hookups that I know of thanks to the Open-Source Boob Project.

So, I'm not saying that touches aren't good by themselves, but still, this is a good thing why?

I've left off the names, because frankly, people should reveal for themselves whether they're Open-Sourcers or not. Not everyone wants to go public with it, and what happens at the con stays at the con. But trust me. If you are, and I meet you, I will ask.

You have insurance, yes? Good.

And you'll understand the beauty and simplicity of the Open-Source Boob Project for yourself.

Well, yes, being the crazy feminazi that I am, I'm always eager to kick men in the balls. I so rarely get socially sanctioned chances to do so, however. Nice of you to do me that favor.

Touch the magic, my friends. Touch the magic.

And here, I though that earlier sentence could never be topped for pure "dear god, I wish I'd never read that"-ness.

Why, Why, Why?!?!?!?!?!?!

Every time I get all set to buy my tix for ComiCon, the idiots of the world make me rethink that decision.

I mean, do I really want be in a packed convention hall full of guys like this guy?


Is even ComiCon really worth that price?



Oh, but! How silly of me, I forgot....

...a brief plug: If you're totally put off by the con you read about and worried that bad things could happen to you at cons everywhere, I'd suggest visiting WisCon, the world's leading feminist science-fiction convention, which I can guarantee you is completely different.

Gee, mister, that's awfully sweet of you, to allow me my fluffy little cage over there. 'Cuz god knows that:

1) the point of WisCon is to be a pink version of ComiCon, and not something else entirely

2) all the special guests that go to ComiCon go to WisCon

3) driving down to San Diego and staying with my cousin is in no way more affordable than flying halfway cross the country and staying in a hotel

4) nor is it more fun, because my cousins will be just as willing and able to hang out with me in Wisconsin as they will in San Diego

5) "separate but equal" is always a dandy idea



I'm seriously tempted to simply spend all that time writing fanfic for Criminal Minds instead.

Just in Case Anyone is Confused....

...everyone gets that Karen Healey and Terry D. Johnson got their numbers from stats published by Marvel, and not by trying to guesstimate according to any artwork, yes?

So we can stop with the waving around of words such as "style" and "artistic" in defense of these numbers, yes?



Good.

Because We Are A Society That Lives on Soundbites

Male physiques, of course, all conform to the statistical norms of the United States.

That's a comment made in response to this post: Marvel Women Unhealthily Underweight

I suspect sarcasm.

Which seems a little, um, clueless? to me, since, well....

For those of us that like numbers, here's the pretty graph that sums up the post's title:



Note how the spikes for the men's BMI occur at roughly the same place, but the Marvel BMI has a higher spike than the real life BMI. So on the one hand, the Marvel average - or ideal - still corresponds pretty well with the real life average, but on the other, Marvel men are more "average" than real men. They are, in fact, about doubly likely to be "average" than real men.

Now, let's look at the curves for the women's BMI. Not only is the Marvel spike five times higher than the spike for real women, the "averages" aren't anywhere near each other. There is no point at which the Marvel curve and the midpoint of the real life curve even overlap. So we've gone from being almost twice as likely to fitting the real life "average" to no one being like the real life "average."

While real women are more likely to be outliers than real men, Marvel men are more likely to be outliers than Marvel women. Marvel women, in fact, show a range that is only half what Marvel men, a third of real men, and a quarter of real women have. So not only is the average Marvel woman nothing like the average real woman, Marvel women who don't fit that average are pretty much non-existant.

Yeah....um, about that sarcasm.....

PS

You should all go read the actual paper, of course. It is by Karen Healey and Terry D. Johnson.

(sigh)

huh?

Kitty Pryde throws herself at Peter Rasputin before the big battle. It’s well-written and doesn’t demean her as a character, but is it appropriate? Well, that depends upon its target audience, doesn’t it?

Um...

Kitty Pryde throws herself at Peter Rasputin before the big battle.

wtf-ever.

Seriously, who the hell describes the continuation of a previously established and emotionally fulfilling sexual relationship as one partner throwing themselves at the other? Really, people, we silly feminazi's would be a little less quick to see sexism when it's only barely there if you all would stop conflating female desire with submission and desperation.

It’s well-written and doesn’t demean her as a character, but is it appropriate?

More or less appropriate than Mystique trying to seduce Wolverine in the second X-Men movie? (Or her make-up throughout all three?)

Well, that depends upon its target audience, doesn’t it?

Since I'm guessing both the target audience and the actual audience of the Whedon's Astonishing X-Men is more than old enough to read about sexual relationships where the two people involved actually treat each other with respect...again I say: wtf-ever.

And as far as the actual point of the post goes:

Just in case I haven't said this enough lately, it just so happens that I often am thinking not just of myself but also of any girl who has started puberty* when I argue against crap like the Heroes for Hire cover and for scenes like the ones where Kitty and Peter get it on. What can I say, I like and admire Judy Blume.

Emma Frost trying to impersonate both the Phoenix and a sex starved kewpie doll - at the same time? Now that I could do without and wouldn't really recommend to anyone - including younger teen girls. I only wish, however, that girls - teen and otherwise - could be exposed to more stuff along the lines of the "I phased!" scene and the "one last time before the big battle" scene.

From my experience of having been one, I can tell you that a lot of girls often get the impression from culture that sex is supposed to be demeaning to women - and it seems increasingly obvious to me that we are not the only ones who learn this. Which means that a lot of people have a really hard time distinguishing "sex" from "showing women in a demeaning manner." Why else would you describe that scene as Kitty "throwing" herself at Peter? No matter how many times you try to argue later that the scene is "well-written and doesn’t demean her as a character" - characterizing her behavior as "throwing" herself at Peter demeans Kitty and her actions. Actions that, yes, really were not at all demeaning as originally written.

I can't decide which I find more disturbing, the misrepresentation of Girl-Wonder's goals, the conflation of Girl-Wonder and every feminist interested in comics, or the constant conflation of (male) sexual desire and objectification (of women and girls) Thankfully, that isn't something that I have to vote on. I can simply get pissed at all three.

*And in case I haven't reminded everyone enough lately, it's not unusual nowadays for puberty to hit girls before they are even into double digits.

Apparently, You Can Never Be Young Enough

feministing and copyranter have both weighed in on the creepiness factor in this ad.

What I find interesting though, is that this ad is from Tiger Beat. A magazine that (assuming it had the same purpose and demographics in 1972 as it does now) is for

1) teen and pre-teen girls

2) who are "obsessed" with boys.

The model in the ad is not standing in for a grown woman - as a commenter at feministing argues - she is standing in for a teen girl only several years older than herself. I rather suspect the shampoo maker used a sexualized pictures of a very young girl to sell it's product not just because our culture infantilizes women, but also because it half-neuters teen girls - they are sexualized, but god forbid they are sexual or have desires of their own.

So, how does one use sex to sell something to teen girls if one cannot be seen as encouraging sexual behavior in teen girls? Especially, god forbid, by acknowledging that they like to look at men and boys. Even in a magazine that is generally bought for the pull-out posters of the pretty boy of the day. (And, whatever one may think of the idea, using sex to sell products to the readers of Tiger Beat is a perfectly logical route to take.)

Well, one fetishizes "innocence" - ie, virginity.

And ends up with something even creepier than what one was trying to avoid in the first place. And yet somehow more acceptable to society. Which is a whole 'nother level of creepy altogether.

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Number 1 Reason Why the Playboy/WW Thing Annoys the Crap Out Me

(on the rare occasions that I think it's worth thinking about at all)

....are we to expect a naked, body-painted Batman on Playgirl in the months leading up to this Summer’s Dark Knight?

Pink Raygun

God, I hope so… I would totally buy that.

Liz - in the comments at The Beat.

As if.

and I seriously cannot read the rest of the comments because not two down from Liz's is another "sex is power!" comment. if sex is power then why is Playgirl such absolute crap?


AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes....and No

(from the comments at pinkraygun - NSFW - re: the now infamous playboy/WW cover)

But secondly, female sexuality is a power, and I would argue that sexuality has always been one of the things that makes Wonder Woman strong, in addition to her physical strength and other abilities/weapons.

I'm going to set aside the whole issue of Wonder Woman for a moment - mostly owing to the fact that I'm hardly an expert on the subject - and focus on this part of the quote:

...female sexuality is a power.

That's one one of those statements that is technically true, but is often falsely used to mean more than just the literal definitions of the words in question.

Why, after all, does one always feel the need to say that female sexuality is a power? Is not sexuality itself a power? (Really people, I cannot possibly be the only one watching the first season of The Tudors now that it's out on dvd.)

Or, more precisely, isn't being sexually desireable a power?

Since, of course, one's sexuality is made up of more than just how other people view you. Yet, when one is discussing Playboy type looks, one is very obviously discussing how other people view you, not everything that falls under "female sexuality." Feminine desires are part of the conversation only when/if they intersect with being on display.

The Pinkraygun reader is trying to argue that being sexually desireable is just one of the many weapons in Wonder Woman's arsenal. However, the fact that we (usually) only attribute such powers to women makes it a gendered power, which - for various reasons - makes it more of a requirement than an asset. It's not just that it's useful to Wonder Woman that she is beautiful and sexy; by defining male and female sexuality the way we do, we also make being ugly more of a liability for women than for men - superheroes included.

Because, for some reason, we consistently define feminine sexuality as very passive - one is desired but does not desire* - and define male sexuality as very active - one desires but is not desired. Needless to say, the fact that reality is otherwise creates some major problems.

Female sexuality feels more powerful to people than it is because the desire (straight) men have for women tends to undermine the premise that men do not fall prey to emotions. But it isn't a superpower - it's an often an illusory power; being an object of desire is only useful if you are high enough in the hierarchy to use that to your advantage. (Henry VIII vs. Duke of Suffolk vs. Anne Boelyn vs. Buckingham's daughter)

Or, more perhaps accurately, female sexuality feels powerful to people because when one is bargaining, the power dynamic between hagglers is largely determined by who is more willing to walk away without a deal having been made.

When we define sexuality only by men's desires, we make it seem as if straight men are always at a disadvantage; we write a cultural narrative in which women are always the ones willing to walk away and men never are. Reality, however, is quite different. (As the characters from The Tudors can attest to.) Plus, being willing to walk away from a deal is not only determined by how much one wants something, but also by if one is physically, financially, and legally able to leave. When we define reality by men's experiences (and usually powerful men's experiences, at that) we forget how often women and other disadvantaged groups are put in the position of not being able to walk away.

(spoilers for the first episode of The Tudors)

I keep going back to one particular scene in the first episode of The Tudors. In it, the king asks Lady Blount if she consents to having sex with him. She says "yes," and very obviously desires him as well. And yet...she's also just a little bit hesitant. And I can't help wondering what would have happened to her if she said "no." I'm fairly certain that she wondered the same thing at one point, and that both of us came to the conclusion that she would have suffered for denying him.

And then, of course, we have Charles Brandon's seduction of Buckingham's daughter (does she even have a name?). This is very obviously a case where the (modern) cultural narrative doesn't work. He chose her mostly in order to hurt her father; it's almost certain that he would have made sure her father knew of her actions if chance had not done so for him. On the other hand, whatever her reasons, it's obvious that desire was one of them. In this case, the man is the one who is using his attractiveness as a weapon and it is the woman who literally cannot walk away from this world of men.

Female sexuality is a liability in a world where sexuality is defined by male desires, and where this definition is enforced by laws and cultural mores. Being a sexually desirable woman is a possible advantage, but how much of a power it is depends upon one's status, which is in turn determined by whose opinions and desires influence culture and law. Women's status may have vastly improved for the better since the time of the Tudors, but as long as our definition of sexuality is (mostly) shaped by male desires, and as long as women as a group still have less political and economic power than men, women will still be at a disadvantage at the bargaining table.

(People who know the character better than I do are welcome to disagree, but...)

I think that Wonder Woman's beauty and sexiness is a more useful power to her in her home world, where it is seen as an asset rather than a requirement, and where she is afforded enough status that her own desires are not disregarded and where other's appreciation of her beauty isn't used to undermine her other strengths.

Which is pretty much the opposite of what most people mean when they talk about female sexuality being powerful.

Plus, what Ragnell said. In spades.

*even women that are viewed as sexually aggressive are usually viewed as being eager to take whatever men want to do to them, rather than having desires of their own

Girls, Girls, Girls

I'm reposting this comment I made over at Echidne's because I think it's something that you, my (whole three) readers might find interesting, and because I might want to expand on later. For context, go here.

Because men like to see women naked a lot more than women like to see men naked.

I call bullshit.

It may (or may not) be true that men are more visually stimulated than women are, but it's absolute BS that biology alone accounts for the fact that pornography is aimed almost solely at men - which is what I gather you are trying to argue.

As I said on my own blog just last night, anyone who thinks that women aren't turned on by pictures of men has never had the task of cleaning up the teen mag section of their local bookstore/supermarket.

I've been that girl. I know what they are looking for in Bop, Tiger Beat, etc. And it isn't that so and so likes Mars Bars but hates peas.

However, unlike boys, they often can't ever find what they are looking for, and so they settle for his favorite color instead. In part because they know that, unlike the boys, they aren't supposed to be looking for it. They aren't supposed to be masturbating. (And I don’t mean “people will tease you” - I mean “your parents will wish you weren’t their daughter.”) Girls aren't supposed to want sex – popular media may show women wanting sex more positively that it used to (but still usually not) but everyone is still very, very frightened of the fact that girls want sex. And so, during the time when they are just learning about their sexuality and are feeling very unsure about themselves, girls usually still hear over and over again that only bad girls want sex.

And so they learn to subvert their sexuality into something more palatable to the general public. One either learns to be asexual or to pretend that one's sexuality is defined only by what other people (men) find to be sexy in you. Often that weird mix of both that keeps us always on the losing side.

That isn't to say that wedes is wrong when she argues that it's normal for women to be aroused when others find us sexy. That this would be true seems obvious. But if it's so obvious, why isn't it obvious for men as well? (And how does who is looking at us come into play?)

I think that it's problematic to talk about freedom of choice and feeling sexy because someone is watching you without also addressing the male gaze, the absence of the female gaze in popular media, and the extent to which women are still often trained to view their own sexual pleasure as secondary, sinful, and/or non-existent. The fact that all this desperately needs addressing elsewhere does not mean that it shouldn’t be addressed when it comes to stripping and porn.

(Although I do agree with wedes that porn gets picked on a lot - because doing so allows us to pretend it's all over there, not in the middle of everything.)

Mostly though, I think it’s just dumb to talk about the gender division in stripping and porn as if it isn’t affected at all by the sexism that affects all other kinds of gender imbalances.

Why is prostitution a mostly female occupation? Do I really need to answer that question?

I’m guessing that you should think about your answer to that question a little more, at the very least.

And when you do, keep in mind that prostitution isn’t really a mostly female occupation. Worldwide, it’s mostly an occupation for women and children. Which isn’t to say that prostitution in inherently exploitive. Just that there’s lots of evidence that the extreme gender division in prostitution, like gender divisions elsewhere, is very much rooted in gender inequality and power structures, not biology.

Correct Me If I'm Wrong, But...

(spoilers spoilers spoilers....that you've probably heard already anyway)

.........when people are unconscious or dead, their knees tend to not do this:





Right?

At least Bucky's knee could conceivably be resting against his other one. But Big Barda? How the fuck did she fall that way, and why didn't gravity pull her knee down?

Dear comic people, if you want us to stop picking on you, you might at least consider showing superheroines actually looking dead when you kill them, rather than like a maiden protesting her imminent deflowering.

Now I realize this isn't exactly the most important thing to complain about, but it seems pretty typical for the particular way in which writers, artists, and editors in comics can be incredibly stupid beyond belief.

Oh, and Bellatrys, here's another thing to add to your list: note how we are at eye level with Bucky, even though he's lying on the ground, but we are practically looking through a hole in the ceiling down at Big Barda.

In other news.

Oh, my God.....He makes you do chores?!?

I still love Runaways.

And, can Brian and Joss just write all the superhero kids from now on? Cuz' that would improve Heroes immensely.

Edited: Because I obviously know nothing about Captain America other than that he died. :)

What's the problem with DC? (And Marvel too?)

Personally, I think they are just plain stupid. They've spent too much time catering to a small, specific audience that they are completely oblivious as to the fact that not only is their audience actually more diverse than they are, but that their potential audience has positively exploded recently.

I mean, sure, DC (finally) started a of line stand alone graphic novels for teen girls - a line that has absolutely nothing to do with the characters they are famous for - but well, that's pretty much it. Which, considering some of the huge changes and opportunities in recent years, is just ridiculous.

(I know even certain Fangirls have thought this next bit was a weird point when I've brought it up before, so let me see if I can explain this a little better this time.)

Marvel and DC consistently put out an insane amount of movie-tie-in books for kids when their superhero movies come out, but none of them is ever comics or a graphic novel. Why?

In addition to the teen manga that's been in the store since we opened, the bookstore now has a section just for graphic novels for kids. We've had it for about a year. It started out as less than one shelf; it now takes up more than a whole bay. (Partly because they recently changed how we shelve things; beginning reader graphic novels used to be shelved with beginning readers.)

I might try counting them today to be sure, but I think there are more titles about Marvel and DC characters in Beginning Readers than there are in the graphic novel section. I'm fairly certain the Disney has more graphic novels in the kids section than Marvel and DC do, combined. Hell, Disney (ok, technically Disney licensed titles by Tokyopop) even ties Marvel and DC individually for graphic novels in the teen area - and easily outsells DC. (Marvel is saved from getting beaten by Kingdom Hearts by the ever popular Runaways.)

What the hell? It's not like their non-graphic movie-tie-in books don't sell. It's not like graphic novels don't sell to kids. Why are there practically no graphic novels by DC and Marvel for kids? It just makes no sense.

It's not like, unlike Scholastic, they are being asked to try a new format. They kinda already know of to do comics. It's not like this wouldn't get them new customers for their actual comics. A lot of the kids asking for Bone or Pokemon books are not already comics readers. Some of them may be, but, judging by how often they have to fight with their parents in order to buy a graphic novel, I doubt they all make regular trips to the comic store. And while parents are still quite skeptical of the literary value of sequential art, they are less reluctant to let their kids buy a thick graphic novel at bookstore than a very thin comic book in a store where most of the books on display feature porn-esque and graphically violent covers. These now elementary kids, however, will be much more likely to spend their allowance as a teen on Marvel or DC comics if they get attached to Marvel and DC characters now.

It's not a given that these kids who are getting hooked on Bone are going to start walking into comic books stores and buying comics by DC or Marvel once they can do so; it's not a given that any kid who might do this will do it no matter what. It's also not a given that their love of the Batman movies will remain strong enough over the years to give them a reason to go to comic book stores when they are old enough to do so alone. But that's exactly what DC and Marvel are assuming is true.

And don't tell me that superheroes just aren't highly popular among kids - boys and girls. Fantasy novels are extremely popular at the moment for much the same reasons that comic fans are fans of comics. Very few of the most popular kid and teen novels in recent years would have sold as well as they did if kids didn't love heroes with special powers and/or gadgets.

You can see this same obliviousness play out in how they didn't capitalize on the goodwill and interest generated among non-comic reading adults through the popularity of the X-Men and Batman movies. I actually got interested in comics because I loved the first X-Men movie. Being a book person, I wanted to read the books too. But it took me several years to become a regular at my local comic store because nothing I found there reminded me of the movies. It was Runaways, Buffy, and finding fellow fangirls to give me some advice on what to try that finally did the trick.

I can't be the only one who got excited about comics because of the movies. I can't be the only one turned off by the in-crowd mentality among comic fans (yeah, I'm looking at you, Dale Carnegie acolytes), the vast differences in tone (read: porn style covers and other common complaints) between the comics and the movies, and just how incredibly confusing it all is to newbies. And, again, how dismissive even usually helpful fans are of legitimate complaints. "But you can always look it up on on wikipedia!" is not a helpful response to "Damn, these backstories are confusing." I'm not looking for more HW to do, thank you. Are there any titles that don't require research? Because if not, I'm going back to the manga section. At least there I can easily order back issues if needed.

I know I can't be the only one, because much of the anger over the MJ statue came from newbies and non-comics readers who loved the movies. I don't think that the lesson of the MJ kerfluffle is that "sex sells". I think Marvel and DC should have taken it as a sign that they have a bigger fanbase than they thought, and that they need to treat these new fans with respect or they will lose them before they ever really had a chance to get to know them. A lot of what this means, btw, is truth in advertising. Don't put cheesecake covers on non-cheesecake comics. Don't pretend that the MJ statue isn't about sex or confuse accusations of objectification with being accused of simply showing something sexual. Don't respond to complaints by saying that it fits her character; it doesn't fit her character as the movie fans know it, and telling them that the movie doesn't count is hardly going to get them coming back and buying your stuff. Instead, explain the idea of multiverse to the newbies and direct these new fans to something that they will like. And when you have trouble doing that last, take a good, hard look at the lack of diversity in your current products.

I don't know if their recent corpse on the kitchen floor was a deliberate diss to feminist fans or not. I think it's kind of like arguing whether someone meant to be deliberately insulting when they said something sexist. It's not the intentions I care so much about, but the effect of the sexism. Whatever their intention, DC just demonstrated once again that they are completely oblivious to both the diversity of their audience and the diversity of their potential audience.

So, was DC being stupid or sexist with their latest blunder? Well, like Pandagon, this is a both/and blog. DC was both stupid and sexist for killing you know who, and leaving her on the damn kitchen floor. Seriously DC, this is why I think twice every time one of your comics looks interesting. And don't even think I've forgotten how much you can suck too, Marvel.

Edited: for grammar, spelling, etc. And to add that I did go ahead and count up the number of DC and Marvel titles in the kid's manga/comics section. Combined, they have a grand total of four titles. One copy each. To put things into perspective, there are two Yu-Gi-Oh! titles, with about four copies each. Seven Babymouse titles, with about 3-6 copies each. Eight Captain Underpants, with a full faceout and backstock for almost every title. One title each for Artemis Fowl and Warriors. The former has a full faceout, but that's because it's a new arrival, it will likely shrink down to just a few copies like the latter within a month or two. All of these books are thicker and larger than the Marvel and DC titles, so that makes the latter really hard to see when browsing.

Double Standards

I have just one thing to say about this (hit tip Tart):

Well, of course it's ok for her too look sexy when she's peddling* something for some (male run) company, but how dare she do so just because she wants to. That's being rude and crude and inappropriate, donthca know? Just one small step away from being manipulative and abusing men with her feminine wiles.





*by the by, Hooters - and the Angels - have incurred my everlasting ire for having a continuous promotion at the supposedly family friendly Angel's ballpark.

My main issue with places like Hooters is the lopsidedness of it and the imbalance of power they therefore help to promote. (And I suspect maintain within the company.) But even if that weren't the case, I don't really think Hooters should be advertising at family events any more than Chippendale's should. Hooter's "girls" may not take their clothes off, but commodification of someone else's sex appeal is still the foundation of the business. I don't think that's something we should promote to kids any more than alcohol and cigarettes are.

Plus, I really don't like anyone that has ever encouraged my father to say the word "hooters" in my presence. Or caused me to wonder how many family members I would alienate if I refused to join in on taking advantage of Hooter's celebratory promotion.

DC's Secret Campaign to Sell Comics to Woodiwiss Fans

Ahem

I picked up Black Canary 1 cuz, well it had Black Canary looking kick ass on the cover. I thought the story was fun, but it didn't hold my interest enough for me to have bothered to read #2.

Mommy Canary falls victim to the awesomeness of Kara!

Honestly. Seriously. I bought both (yes, late) and got incredibly distracted by how cool Supergirl was. I had been almost looking forward to reading more of about Mom- er - Black Canary but well, it was like when I was forced to go back to American chocolate after having traveled through Belgium and Switzerland. It was just too depressing. I needed some more time to savor the latter before going back to the former.

Having read pervyficgirl's critique of Black Canary 4, I'm kinda glad I haven't been by the comic book store in the last few weeks. Because omg, if I want to read about a relationship marred by Big Misunderstandings, Alpha Males who do not appreciate the the awesomeness of their women, Heroines that are TSTL*, and everything else that goes along with all that - including bad dialogue, I'll pick up a romance novel, thank you very much. A crappy one at that. (Julia Quinn would ashamed to write such dreck.) At least then I'll be getting beefcake instead of cheesecake.

e_e

(with special thanks to ami for teaching me the emoticon for "rolls eyes")

*for non romance readers, this means "Too Stupid to Live." While this term is generally reserved for damsels who can't manage to wake up in the morning without bringing calamity upon themselves, I think it also accurately describes a superhero who breaks down in tears in the middle of fights.

Life Isn't Binary, Part 11011

I repeat, "Life isn't binary."

This is the question.

That is the answer.

There endeth the lesson.

More on Plastic Pixels

First, to remind us all (on the odd chance that we need reminding) why this is so important to talk about, I'd like to share with you the conversation I had last night with my dad, who usually puts up with my rambling by just nodding along.

Me:

So this site had a before and after picture of a photoshopped magazine cover, and some stupid people are arguing that it's really a composite of two pictures, even though that wouldn't make sense, because it's usually harder to do. There's all sorts of patterns on her dress that would be hard to match up.

Dad: uh-huh

Me: They're arguing that they made her torso smaller by copying from another photo where her posture is different, instead of just squishing it, which would be much easier.

Dad: uh-huh ........wait - what?

Me: what?

Dad: They did what?

Me: They made her torso skinnier. And her arms and a bunch of stuff like that.

Dad: What magazine was this?

Me: Oh, some women's magazine (checks computer) - Redbook

Dad: But not, like, a news magazine or anything. They don't do that.

Me: Well, that depends.

Dad: ...like Newsweek....

Me: That depends on who's on the cover. If it's a headshot of someone like Obama, they'll touch it up a little...

Dad: Like, if he had a zit that day, they'll cover it up.

Me:...mostly, yeah. Depends. But if it's someone like even Katie Couric, they'll totally make her skinnier than she is.

Dad: Really?

Me: Really.

Dad: (makes a sound of disgust and turns back to his newspaper)



I'd also like to clarify why I think it's important to realize that the images below are from the same photo. Someone else has suggested that the second arm is taken from another photo rather than copied from another part of the same picture. That's possible; and it's pretty irrelevant to the point.

The point is that not only is she "retouched" she's retouched in a way so that her posture is impossible. Not only is she photoshopped in a way that each different angle of her body is not just possible within a single pose, but the "angle" of her back is just not possible, period. There's not enough room left between her back and her front to make room for all her organs. There's not room left in her back for her shoulder muscles, no matter if she's standing upright or leaning over.

No wonder why so many idiots think that artwork like Turner's is simply "idealized" rather than "freaky" - even the photos we all see every day do the same general thing.

This is Not Celebreality

So, more people than should (ie, a greater number than zero) believe that the images below are from two different shots.





(from Jezebel, via Pandagon)

In order words, yes, the cover is photoshopped, but ya'll are seeing stuff that isn't even there.

Since the only coherent verbal reply that I can come up with to answer that is "WTflyingF?!?!?" I shall, instead answer with pictures.

Torso:



Squished? or Naturally arched in a different pose?




Top dress fold on the right leg:



Distorted? or Different pose?



Right hand/arm:



Hand replaced with arm? or Different pose?




What do you all think?

(you, know, all two of you.)

update: I've now added a poll. Shiny!