Bent Corner

I didn’t know that Playboy has a blog, but there are a lot of things I don’t know. This is just one of them. On their blog, Josh Robertson responds to some of the hullabaloo raised in some quarters over the fact that Tiffany Fallon was bodypainted to make it appear she was dressed in a Wonder Woman’s costume.

Josh Robertson writes:

It’s our cover, and while we don’t feel the need to explain in detail our thought process, perhaps a step back is warranted. The story is called “Sex in America.” Wonder Woman is sexy. Her costume is red, white and blue, and she has stars on her hot pants – it suggests the American flag almost as much as Captain America’s does. But we like to put women on our covers, so Steve Rogers is SOL in this case.

He’s exactly right. They don’t need to explain their thought process, but they did anyway. I’m certainly glad they did because it makes most of the criticism over the magazine cover look even more silly then it did because. I didn’t even know that was possible. For instance, comic book writer Greg Rucka theorizing that running a cover photo of Tiffany Fallon painted up to look like Wonder Woman was done to torpedo Hillary Clinton’s run for president.

I don’t know what more embarrassing: That he would come up with that goofy leap of logic that or that a lot of people actually agreed with him. Luckily it’s not my job to figure that out.

Josh Robertson continues:

Is Wonder Woman a feminist icon? If you say so. Is she a sex symbol? Without a doubt. Are the two mutually exclusive? Creator William Moulton Marston would have found the question laughable. The false dichotomy that separates female sex appeal from female intellect and strength of character hobbles feminism, and that’s been Playboy’s view for over 50 years.

It seems some people want to argue that sex appeal and intellect are an either-or type of thing. That a woman can be either physically attractive or she can be smart. She can’t be both. Why do some people think this? Is it because over the years woman have been portrayed this way in works of fiction? It’s as though we are supposed to actually believe a woman can only either be the ditzey bombshell or the homely nerd-girl.

Woman can be smart and sexy. The two are not mutually exclusive. People need to stop pretending that they are.

I’ve been trying to keep up with the online funny book feminist overreaction to Tiffany Fallon being painted up to look like Wonder Woman on the cover of Playboy. Even though Fallon is technically nude on the cover, it’s not the most titillating image to ever grace the cover of a magazine, especially a magazine such as Playboy. You have to look close to even realize that she is indeed even naked.

Some funny book feminists have been vocal with their disapproval of the cover. Ragnell writes over at Written World:

If they’re smart, they’ll put their foot down and try and reclaim that image. Pink Raygun (NSFW) asked if we’d see a model as Batman in the same sort of thing. The answer’s no. You won’t see Batman in paint on the cover of Playgirl because DC protects their copyright to Batman, and goes out of their way to stop sexualized images of Batman. The character is money to them, they want to control how the public receives him.

The “sexualized images of Batman“ she is referring to is the watercolor artwork of artist Mark Chamberlain. They are more then just sexualized images of Batman. They show Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder engaged in various sex acts. With each other.

Say what you want about the Playboy cover, but at least Wonder Woman isn’t engaged in sodomy with an under aged minor.

It’s true DC sent a “cease & desist” letter to the New York Chelsea art dealer that was selling the gay Batman and Robin watercolors. That was over two years ago. I don’t know what ever became of the case. Honestly, I don’t really care. I noticed today that at least some of the art is still up for sale at the artist’s website. That makes me think DC wasn’t too successful in getting the art removed.

Wonder Woman on the cover of Playboy is not the same thing as artwork featuring Batman and Robin engaged in sodomy. Then again, what if it was? I don’t remember anyone - male or female - getting angry over the Chamberlain artwork showing Batman engaged in gay sex. In fact, I remember the complete opposite. I remember most people reacting to the gay Batman and Robin art as though it was kind of funny.

Imagine that.

What’s sure to enrage female comic book fans, Tiffany Fallon is on the cover of Playboy magazine sans clothing with her body painted to look like Wonder Woman. The costume is a little off, but it’s certainly a Wonder Woman costume. What does that say about me when I look at a photo of a nude woman and I notice that her red boots are a little off because they don’t have the gold trim normally seen on Wonder Woman’s boots?

Part of me is somewhat surprised that Playboy magazine is still in circulation. Not only because it’s a magazine and magazines are a lot less prevalent in the age of the Internet, but because it is a magazine dedicated to showing pretty females in the buff. I would have thought the Internet would have replaced the need of a magazine such as Playboy. Maybe Playboy is for men that like to look at naked woman, but don’t know how to find porn on the Internet.

In other words, really dumb men. Not being able to find pictures of nude women on the Internet is a lot like not being able to find water at the ocean.

I have to admit that this doesn’t bother me all that much. I’m not a fan of the sexualization of comic book characters, but I guess that’s when it’s done by the actual comic book publishers. For instance, when Marvel Comics authorized that ridiculous Mary Jane Watson statue. The one where she is doing the laundry. For some reason, this doesn’t bug me too much.

It wouldn’t bother me either if Superman or Batman received the same treatment. In fact, I would think it was pretty funny.

I’m not even sure if DC Comics or their parent company, Warner Brothers, authorized Playboy to do this or if it fell into the territory of fair use. It’s not an exact copy of the Wonder Woman costume, but she is referred to as Wonder Woman on the bottom left of the cover.

I just got done reading Amazons Attack #6. In hindsight, I wish I’d done something more constructive with my time and money. Like maybe reading old phone books from cities I have never been to.

I hate to say that Amazons Attack sucked because the artwork was really very good. The artist for this series was Pete Woods and the writer was Will Pfeifer. It would be easy to blame how bad this series was on Will Pfeifer. I normally blame the writer when I read a comic I don’t like. I don’t feel that I can do that in this particular case. Since this is one of those Major Comic Book Events™, its not like Pfeifer had many choices in how this thing ends. That is the main problem I had with this book. The ending.

I didn’t understand it.

The book ends with the Goddess Athena on Mount Olympus (?) with many of the Greek gods (??) chained up behind her while she stares down into a basin of water and speaks about justice. One of the Greek goddesses (???) starts to give Athena grief over her use of the word “justice”. The unnamed Greek goddess points out that she stole Athena’s identity and left her for dead. What? This isn’t Athena? Well then who is this mystery woman? The fake Athena’s face begins to melt away and I have to turn the page to see what happens next.

The first thing I see upon turning the page is Clark Kent with a 6-foot long golden necktie wrapped around his neck with one end of the necktie being held by a cyborg Sinestro Corp Superman. Clark Kent’s shirt is torn open exposing his Superman costume underneath. Worse, he’s not wearing his glasses. Without his glasses, people will know that Clark Kent is Superman! The cyborg Sinestro Corp Superman is wearing Clark Kent’s glasses. I then realize that this isn’t part of the Amazons Attack story. No, this is just an extremely poorly placed advertisement for yet another DC Comics mini-series that promises to be just as retarded as this one.

The continuation of the story is on the next page. Talk about destroying the pacing of the story. Its a one-page splash showing someone who I assume is Bea Arthur all decked out in armor and laughing her fat ass off. Whats Bea Arthur doing in Amazons Attack? Thats it. The End.

I didn’t actually think this was in fact the actress Bea Arthur. Who then was it? After some searching on the Internets, I found out that it was someone called Granny Goodness. Who is that? What a ridiculous name. I’ve never heard of this character. I went to Wikipedia and did some research on Granny Goodness. It turns out she is a character created by Jack Kirby in 1971. She is part of Kirby’s New Gods series. How am I supposed to know that? I don’t mind having to do some post-comic book reading online research after reading a comic book. I really don’t. I cannot count how many times I’ve had to go to Wikipedia and look up something I wasn’t familiar with (father box). I just don’t know how I am supposed to know that a woman that looks like an actress from Golden Girls is a character created by Jack Kirby. In 1971. How about at least showing her name? It would make the required Wikipedia search so much easier.

And to think some people wonder why kids today shun comic books yet devour manga. You don’t have to know obscure manga trivia from over 30 years ago to read manga.