Marvel VP Speaks Mind on Manara Spider Woman Butt Cover

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Marvel VP Speaks Mind on Manara Spider Woman Butt Cover

Tom Brevoort figures if you hire someone like Milo Manara, you know what to expect. But was Marvel paying attention to its readership?

Spider Woman recently garnered Marvel a lot of negative publicity, thanks to a Milo Manara variant cover that many regarded as less than suitable. Marvel VP Tom Brevoort took a question on his Tumblr on this issue. Wasn't this negative reaction a form of conservatism, the questioner asked, evidently afraid that sexual thematics would be removed from comics.

Tom Brevoort's response in full is:

Well, I think a couple of things.

I think that the people who are upset about that cover have a point, at least in how the image relates to them.

By that same token, Milo Manara has been working as a cartoonist since 1969, and what he does hasn't materially changed in all that time. So when we say 'Manara cover', his body of work indicates what sort of thing he's going to do.

It's also, for a Manara piece, one of the less sexualized ones, at least to my eye. Maybe others feel differently. But given that the character is covered head-to-toe, and is crouched in a spider-like pose, it seems far less exploitative to me than other Manara pieces we've run in previous months and years.

But all that said, it's the right of every reader not to like something.

And fortunately, it's a variant cover, so people will likely need to seek it out if they want it, rather than it being the display piece for the book.

I think a conversation about how women are depicted in comics is relevant at this point, and definitely seems to be bubbling up from the zeitgeist. That too is fine. Nothing gets better unless ideas are communicated.

In previous years, if Marvel took flak on an issue it could count on the usual internet suspects weighing in. This time it's getting attention from the likes of Time, Hollywood Reporter, and Guardian, news outlets that until relatively recently wouldn't have bothered about what happens in comic books.

Then Marvel had a string of hit movies. Marvel Comics started encouraging its female readership, even announcing a female Spider-Man spin-off movie, and with good reason.

"If you go to conventions and comic book stores, more and more female readers are emerging," said Marvel's Axel Alonso. "They are starved for content and looking for content they can relate to." Market research indicates that, of the 24 million comic fans in the US, 46.67% are women. That's 11.2 million readers, looking for characters whose adventures they can enjoy.

Given the increased number of female readers, and given the attention Marvel's been getting from major news outlets thanks to its movie hits, maybe now wasn't the best time for a Manara variant cover. But at least the conversation's happening; after all, nothing gets better unless ideas are communicated.

Source: Brevoort Tumblr

Permalink

In this situation, it's less a matter of sexism and more that of terrible art. There have been much much more sexist covers than this. (Heros for hire 13 I am looking at you) But this is by far the worst. It's offensive to the eye. It's sexist objectification done bad.

I'm not sure if it's "Spider-like," but I find the post on the cover kind of disturbing.

If that's supposed to be hot, sexualised, well...Ummm...I don't know.

Whatever you do, don't tell them about the back room of the comic book store! Please, everyone tell them that the boxes named "adult" are really just Archie Comics.

Sorry, but not only is this a rare cover which should make this entirely meaningless, but sexy isn't evil. Even nude drawings isn't evil. Hell, Marvel should consider an adult line of marvel comics. Call it universe XXX or whatever.

That cover made me chuckle. I too, think it's bad art, but it is bad because it wants to be cheesecake too.
Kinda reminds me of this Catwomen cover and it's surrounding controversy.

Story:
That cover made me chuckle. I too, think it's bad art, but it is bad because it wants to be cheesecake too.
Kinda reminds me of this Catwomen cover and it's surrounding controversy.

Ugh, they put her breast where her butt should be and vice versa...

So...they got a guy that always does that sort of stuff, and the defense is it's not as bad as some of his other stuff?

Why not hire someone who isn't him and avoid the issue?

Lightknight:
Ugh, they put her breast where her boobs should be and vice versa...

Ah-huh.

Im gonna say it plain. Feminism and sexy stuff like this can exist in harmony if people have the mind to see it that way.

thaluikhain:
So...they got a guy that always does that sort of stuff, and the defense is it's not as bad as some of his other stuff?

Why not hire someone who isn't him and avoid the issue?

Lightknight:
Ugh, they put her breast where her boobs should be and vice versa...

Ah-huh.

The same reason why it doesn't ultimately matter, it's a variant cover. Only some comic shops will have it and it will run on a much more limited run than the standard cover.

OT: Haha, I still have to laugh at this. I personally appreciate their stance because they are being very reasonable. They basically said that if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it since it's a limited variant cover. Articles like this is what happens when something moves into the mainstream. Comics are mostly fine, but occasionally there is a cover like this. Everyone in turn flips their shit. I have to wonder, of that 11.2 Million readers that are female, how many of them actually care. Hell, how many of them maybe even like the cover. I hate to say it, but not all women are afraid of their sexuality and certainly not afraid of it in the comics they may read.

rbstewart7263:
Im gonna say it plain. Feminism and sexy stuff like this can exist in harmony if people have the mind to see it that way.

The moment feminists begin to realize that the girl jogging down the street in short juicy boy shorts and sports bra is also a woman should be the moment they realize that some girls want to be sexy and that sexy isn't an evil attribute.

But no, their expression of women is the only one they're going to allow :p

thaluikhain:
So...they got a guy that always does that sort of stuff, and the defense is it's not as bad as some of his other stuff?

Why not hire someone who isn't him and avoid the issue?

Variant Cover (aka, rare and limited edition). They hired him to do a special limited edition cover that you actually have to look for. They specifically hired him to make the cover in that way.

Someone else made the mainstream cover that everyone gets on shelves.

Also, why would it be wrong of them to specifically want that cover even as mainstream. If they want it that way then it's their IP.

Lightknight:
Variant Cover (aka, rare and limited edition). They hired him to do a special limited edition cover that you actually have to look for. They specifically hired him to make the cover in that way.

Someone else made the mainstream cover that everyone gets on shelves.

Also, why would it be wrong of them to specifically want that cover even as mainstream. If they want it that way then it's their IP.

Sure, they can run that cover as mainstream if they want.

But to say about it "Well, the guy we chose to hire for this is stuck in the 60s, actually this is pretty good for him"...that's terrible PR. Couldn't he have said something about "Having a distinctive, retro style" or something?

I liked the cover.
Manara is not just about being sexy, he is about being provocative.
Of course, it is just a variation of hundreds of comic covers that places boobs on offer to the reader. Greg Land has been cutting/paste porno actresses for years now in several covers.
Manara's work is at least original.
I think it is always valid to discuss the portrayal of women in comics, but I don't think sexy and provocative is out of place when it fits the character.
Artistic speaking, the drawing is anatomically correct if she was naked, but Manara ignores the wrinkles and extra lines that a suit would create(on porpoise).

thaluikhain:

Lightknight:
Variant Cover (aka, rare and limited edition). They hired him to do a special limited edition cover that you actually have to look for. They specifically hired him to make the cover in that way.

Someone else made the mainstream cover that everyone gets on shelves.

Also, why would it be wrong of them to specifically want that cover even as mainstream. If they want it that way then it's their IP.

Sure, they can run that cover as mainstream if they want.

But to say about it "Well, the guy we chose to hire for this is stuck in the 60s, actually this is pretty good for him"...that's terrible PR. Couldn't he have said something about "Having a distinctive, retro style" or something?

No, what they're saying is that this IS his style. This is in-line with his body of work from back then.

They weren't saying that this is pretty good for an old guy. They're saying that this IS what they knew he would do and what they hired him for specifically that.

So the PR response is, "Yeah, we knew this would be the result. We hired him for it. We knew it could be controversial so we just put it in the variant cover so it's rare, deal with it."

It was them sticking to their guns.

I don't care about sexismpatriarchycheckyourprivilegecisscumblablabla
What I care about is
1)The pose looks uncomfortable
2)What is she wearing that it goes inside her but-cheeks as well? Fabric doesn't work that way.
3)Why would anyone need to crawl like that?
Yeah, I wonder about things like that :)

I don't have a problem with the cover, to my eye it looks like crap so what ever.

I just wish I could convince someone at Marvel to do an Ultimate Spider-woman series, Jessica Drew in the Ultimate universe is so much more interesting.

blackrave:
I don't care about sexismpatriarchycheckyourprivilegecisscumblablabla
What I care about is
1)The pose looks uncomfortable
2)What is she wearing that it goes inside her but-cheeks as well? Fabric doesn't work that way.
3)Why would anyone need to crawl like that?
Yeah, I wonder about things like that :)

I do too, though I then go on to remind myself that someone in a strange looking pose, or fabric doing bizarre things are hardly the oddest details about a book full of super-powered people from all over the universe fighting things like a giant guy who flies around on a mechanical throne eating planets. One moment I'm all. "Who poses like THAT," and the next I'm all "This guy's power is welding dogs to things..."

zinho73:
I liked the cover.
Manara is not just about being sexy, he is about being provocative.
Of course, it is just a variation of hundreds of comic covers that places boobs on offer to the reader. Greg Land has been cutting/paste porno actresses for years now in several covers.
Manara's work is at least original.
I think it is always valid to discuss the portrayal of women in comics, but I don't think sexy and provocative is out of place when it fits the character.
Artistic speaking, the drawing is anatomically correct if she was naked, but Manara ignores the wrinkles and extra lines that a suit would create(on porpoise).

Ugh, Greg Land. He and Liefeld and their ilk are just, ugh... I'll never understand how some people can defend these guys. Yeah, I get their impact on comics was huge and that at one time people were buying the books almost based on nothing more than who the artist was, making them minor celebrities, but still... ugh.

image
As a female reader, I just want equality with the men. Fine, you want to draw Spider-Woman with a suit that is so tight it MUST be sprayed on latex with her butt cheeks spread so wide you can park a jumbo jet between them, looking like she's presenting herself to the entire city of New York? Sure. But do the same for Spider-man now too.

Even if nearly 45% of comic readers are female, 95% of comic writers and artists are men, and the industry carries a rather unflattering stigma of sexism and chauvinism from decades of pandering to juvenile adolescents obsessed with T&A. Heck, that's practically what put titles like Witchblade on the map.

But times are different, and Marvel is, well, mainstream. When Avengers is the 3rd biggest movie of all time, you can't claim you pander just to a small, male, pre-teen demographic anymore. And, to be fair to Marvel, they have made great strides in improving their use and portrayal of female characters (ESPECIALLY compared to DC, who has gone in the reverse direction of progress).

As a female reader, I'm thrilled to see less cheesecake and pandering and more legitimate heroines that look and act like actual human beings.
Just a few I follow:
image
image
image
image

And probably my favorite heroine of all time:
image
(Shame Marvel erased her from existence with One More Day... just one of many reasons to hate One More Day)

From Black Widow to Scarlet Witch to the many great female leaders of the X-men (man, those movies did none of them justice...) to even lesser heroines like Rescue and Jessica Jones, Marvel's gotten much better, but the old stink of the past is still around in some parts, and it's still not quite as inviting to female readers as it probably should be.

Which is a shame. Growing up, I was told girls watched things like Jem, Strawberry Shortcake, Rainbow Bright, and My Little Pony, but I loved excitement, drama, and action, and instead was watching things like She-Ra, Scarlet in G.I. Joe, even April in Ninja Turtles and Cheetara in Thundercats. I was reading those wacky 80's issues of She-Hulk and Spider-Woman (the one in the cool black costume), and Batgirl was a huge role model.

I want young girls to have that same feeling, despite the last vocal gasps of male-driven comics going to the wayside. I saw this first-hand with a young female reader:
image

Things are improving, bit by bit by agonizing bit, but until Marvel is confident enough to put a Captain Marvel on screen in a leading role and making female-driven action vehicles "mainstream" (as if the one-two-three punch of "Catching Fire", "Frozen", and "Gravity" last year wasn't enough), it's going to remain a petulant problem where more ink is devoted to Spider-Woman's glutes than to her character, personality, heroism, or status as a role model for young girls.

So, hurry up, Marvel. I'm more than eager to pay money for a Captain Marvel film.

Lightknight:

thaluikhain:
/snip

No, what they're saying is that this IS his style. This is in-line with his body of work from back then.

They weren't saying that this is pretty good for an old guy. They're saying that this IS what they knew he would do and what they hired him for specifically that.

So the PR response is, "Yeah, we knew this would be the result. We hired him for it. We knew it could be controversial so we just put it in the variant cover so it's rare, deal with it."

It was them sticking to their guns.

I can't remember where I read it (think it was even here) but the best reply I heard was "Would be awesome if we got Salvadore Dali to do a variant cover and then everyone would be "Oh my god, why does Spiderwoman have eyes on the same side of her face??"

It's artistic expression. They hired him to create something in his style. They shouldn't have to cover their asses (pun somewhat intended) by saying they are sorry for an artist creating art. I actually like their reply, it's very nonchalant and matter of fact, which is exactly how it should be. You don't have to like it.

It's a shame Frank Frazetta isn't around. Would be awesome to see his take on Marvel heroes..

Makabriel:

It's a shame Frank Frazetta isn't around.

Unlike the rest of the comic book industry, Frankie had an inkling about the human anatomy.

Lightknight:

Sorry, but not only is this a rare cover which should make this entirely meaningless, but sexy isn't evil. Even nude drawings isn't evil.

Sexy isn't evil. But removing your character's coccyx to make her 'sexy' is idiotic.

The biggest problem is the pose... and the fact that clothing does NOT work that way, no matter how skin tight. It is almost like she isn't even wearing anything. Combine that with how she is posed, and... yeah... not good. Horrible art, really.

I think that they should have had him do an alternative cover for Red Sonja, or something similar, instead of Spider-Woman, especially if they're trying to get more female readers for it. Also, the way her neck and face is posed conjures up for me an image of an amalgamation of two early InuYasha villains...

Trishbot:

image

The person who made that image is ignorant.

They made a version of the Teen Titans comic that was similar to the show.

It was called "Teen Titans Go!". I read it.

It did okay while the series was on, but started to perform poorly a little while after the series ended.

I am more offended by that boring costume design.
How does yellow triangle and diamond on red communicate "spider" again?
That "web" armpithair looks completely artificial and impractical.
How do you even cosplay this? It'll just flop down if you don't keep it in place with something like sticks that will poke into your armpit.
All that hassle for something that has absolutely no function and just looks like some geometric shape slapped onto her with low opacity.
And her back is completely monocolored. Snore.

It got nothing on spidermans iconic costume.
Showing her lips and hair seemed to be higher on the priority list than making an interesting costume that immediately communicates what she is about.

fithian:

The person who made that image is ignorant.

They made a version of the Teen Titans comic that was similar to the show.

It was called "Teen Titans Go!". I read it.

It did okay while the series was on, but started to perform poorly a little while after the series ended.

Yes, as a kid they had "animated" comics for lots of kids shows, like Batman: The Animated Series and Superman...

...But we "grew up", and often those comics didn't last long. Now, as an ADULT, one with disposable income and a life-long love for heroines of my youth, to open the pages of a comic and find your favorite heroine (and the ONLY place you can read about her, I should note) reduced to a vapid sex object (and this was going on BEFORE this infamous issue, I should note), barely resembling the spunky, inspiring, charming, lovely, adorable, amazing girl you looked up to in your youth... that doesn't make it any easier.

This isn't NEW, mind you... Captain Marvel may be on top of the Marvel world right now, but, wow, the 80's dragged her through the gutter (loss of powers, mind control, kidnapping, rape, incest, alcoholism, etc.) and people don't fondly look back at that period of time.

For DC, in particular, the Starfire issue was just one of MANY very, very bad choices in dealing with female characters. Catwoman's first new issue, for instance, spent over three full pages ogling her body from every single angle before we ever got to see her FACE several pages later (and ended with her having sex with Batman on a roof). Amanda "The Wall" Waller went from one of the most famous plus-sized women in comics to a skinny, gorgeous supermodel with no memorable qualities. DC told the writers of Batwoman they could not allow their lesbian main characters to marry and they quit the book in protest. Batgirl's reboot erased two fan-favorite female characters and undid one of the best handicapped heroines in the series, stripping her of being the first "online" heroine and founder of the Birds of Prey, and restoring her to a status quo from 25 years ago. Raven doesn't even have a face right now (just big boobs under a pile of feathers). They introduced fan-favorite female heroine Artemis from Young Justice... and killed her off the next issue. Wonder Woman has been "Superman's Girlfriend (tm)" for sometime now. The ONLY female heroine that I felt is better off now than before the reboots is Aquaman's wife, Mera, and that's only because the whole Aquaman series under Geoff Johns was supremely awesome and developed and evolved the characters in a way that improved them rather than reduced them.

So Starfire losing her memory and having tons of emotionless sex with a conga line of men isn't THE problem, but one of many problems that DC did rapid-fire over the span of their relaunch. Starfire was never my favorite... but even I had read enough to know when this character is significantly less interesting or likable due to bone-headed decisions to make her a "sexually liberated" woman not interested in strong emotional attachments.... the total opposite of her original personality.

loa:
I am more offended by that boring costume design.
How does yellow triangle and diamond on red communicate "spider" again?
That "web" armpithair looks completely artificial and impractical.
How do you even cosplay this? It'll just flop down if you don't keep it in place with something like sticks that will poke into your armpit.
All that hassle for something that has absolutely no function and just looks like some geometric shape slapped onto her with low opacity.
And her back is completely monocolored. Snore.

It got nothing on spidermans iconic costume.

It's not a bad costume. And plenty of people have rocked it in cosplay.
image
image
image
image

I've said this elsewhere and I'll say it here
"Spider-woman's crack is deeper than my voice."

I'm referring to the variant drawing in question.

Trishbot:

It's not a bad costume.

If you only show that costume without providing context, it does a bad job of conveying the theme of the character.
Batman has a batlike cape, a mask with ears and a bat emblem, spiderman has spiderweb and a spider logo, superman has the S.
Everyone kind of has a logo, yes?

Spiderwoman tho?
The first thing that came to mind when seeing the red gold color scheme was the flash and that web armpit hair being the only spidery thing is just weird.

Trishbot:
Comic stuff

So what do you think of ultimate Spider-woman (Jessica Drew)? I can't be the only one interested in seeing a comic focused solely on her and her identity issues.

Trishbot:

Yes, as a kid they had "animated" comics for lots of kids shows, like Batman: The Animated Series and Superman...

...But we "grew up", and often those comics didn't last long. Now, as an ADULT, one with disposable income and a life-long love for heroines of my youth, to open the pages of a comic and find your favorite heroine (and the ONLY place you can read about her, I should note) reduced to a vapid sex object (and this was going on BEFORE this infamous issue, I should note), barely resembling the spunky, inspiring, charming, lovely, adorable, amazing girl you looked up to in your youth... that doesn't make it any easier.

Some of the comics based on the shows were good, and some of them sell okay. Most don't last after the show ends.

The reality is that if a book does not sell they won't keep making it. So people have to buy it when they are making it, because if they don't then they will stop making it.

The version of Starfire the Teen Titans fans were familiar with was nothing like Starfire in the comics. That is a fact and they are probably never going to make her like the Starfire on the show.

The shit they pulled with Ms. Marvel in 80's was terrible. no one will argue against that.

loa:

Trishbot:

It's not a bad costume.

If you only show that costume without providing context, it does a bad job of conveying the theme of the character.
Batman has a batlike cape, a mask with ears and a bat emblem, spiderman has spiderweb and a spider logo, superman has the S.
Everyone kind of has a logo, yes?

Spiderwoman tho?
The first thing that came to mind when seeing the red gold color scheme was the flash and that web armpit hair being the only spidery thing is just weird.

Do you think Captain America because Spider-man is also red, blue, and white? Or do you think Flash because Iron Man is red and gold as well?

The pattern is very much in the design of spider-markings (like a black widow's or weaver spider's):
image

And the underarm webbing is something even regular Spider-man has had since his first appearance:
image
It also resembles certain glider suits, and she has the ability to glide through the air on the web wings, so they serve a practical purposes as well.

I see zero problem with it. It's not my favorite (that would go to the Julia Carpenter suit that inspired Spider-man's black costume), but it's colorful, well designed, the spider markings accentuate her muscles and curves, and it fits right in with what the other heroes and heroines were wearing at the time.

fithian:

The version of Starfire the Teen Titans fans were familiar with was nothing like Starfire in the comics. That is a fact and they are probably never going to make her like the Starfire on the show.

It depends on when you read the comics. When the show came out? Yeah, Starfire was already pretty embarrassing by that point, but she was still very, very much a happy, plucky, naive young woman that loved people and being in love.

For those of us who are older and read those original Teen Titan comics, Starfire was very much like how we envisioned, only tweaked and modernized a bit to be a stronger role model.

ESPECIALLY in terms of the relationships:
image
The series was defined by moments like this, of sweetness, tenderness, learning, growing up, falling in and out of love, struggling with identity, living in others' shadows, forging friendships and dealing with loss...

Starfire was one reason Robin stopped being "Robin". He was told never to get emotionally involved with others due to his superhero identity, like Batman who kept all the women he loved at arm's length. He didn't want that. He didn't want to be like his mentor, and he followed his heart, cast aside "Robin" to grow up and become his own man, "Nightwing", and he and Starfire pursued a very happy relationship together that pretty much was a thing throughout the entire run of the comic, even towards the end of the series before the reboot.
image

Every iteration will always have differences, but it's usually advantageous to IMPROVE a character over time, not regress them and make them worse and less interesting, which became the case with much of the New 52.

For context, I absolutely respect erotic artists; hell, my avatar is a piece by Maeda Toshio, creator of La Blue Girl and Legend of the Overfiend. I love the grotesque pulp pieces that guys like Rick Melton and Simon Bisley thrive on. Masamune Shirow and Yu Kiutani are incredible technical artists who decided to focus on the female form because, hey, boobies are awesome. H.R. Giger literally created new genres of expressionism by using sex as a weapon against the audience, and did so with such unprecedented skill that to this day I can't think of a more influential form of 20th century surrealism. To write sexuality off by default is to deny one of the things being human is all about, and while I can (partially) understand people shrugging handheld POV porn as garbage, anything hand drawn deserves the same respect as any creation by the human hand.

I think Milo Manara's done some really fine work in his particular field. His minimalist 70s style has a certain elegance to it - reminiscent of European comic artists like Mobius and Angelo Santo and the like. He's a talented guy, and some of his work is really lovely. I just don't think this particular piece is any good. The costume looks like body paint slathered on a naked back, and her head is disproportionate to the rest of her body. It looks "off" in a number of ways, and that's a bigger problem than it simply being sexualized, which - at least in my view - isn't itself a problem (least of all because it's a variant).

A least Brevoort is being honest; they wanted a little saucy controversy, and Manara's the guy to do that. He just didn't bring his A game this time, and that's a shame. I can, and will, defend good porn. It's harder to defend bad art.

*sigh* It wouldn't be a day in 'Murica if someone wasn't flipping their shit over something, lame or otherwise. From my perspective, I've seen some of Manara's works and 1)it has changed very little since he got into the industry many years ago, and 2) compared to the Spider-Woman cover, it is very tame, I mean, after all, Spider-Woman is wearing an outfit that is neither see through nor revealing. I'll grant, that pose does look rather uncomfortable, but if that's the extent of the problem, then sign me up for a purchase! It must be a slow news day, as so many people are talking about this. I for one, am glad to see that we've conquered the Ebola thing, that Israel and the Palestinians have managed to settle their differences permanently and singing Kumbiyah (sp), and that Russia wants nothing to do with the Ukraine. Now that we have all that settled, let's talk about what one Frenchman has done to our (relatively) obscure female comic!!!

rbstewart7263:
Im gonna say it plain. Feminism and sexy stuff like this can exist in harmony if people have the mind to see it that way.

This is perfectly true. In fact, I think that if done right, sexiness can enhance a work and maybe even be empowering to women. In order to do that though, it needs to have more depth and meaning that simply being pure titillation.

Lightknight:

rbstewart7263:
Im gonna say it plain. Feminism and sexy stuff like this can exist in harmony if people have the mind to see it that way.

The moment feminists begin to realize that the girl jogging down the street in short juicy boy shorts and sports bra is also a woman should be the moment they realize that some girls want to be sexy and that sexy isn't an evil attribute.

But no, their expression of women is the only one they're going to allow :p

Feminist checking in to say, no, this isn't how it works. Not for me, certainly not for even the most extremist person I've spoken with.

Sexy women are awesome! Women who are in tune with their sexuality are awesome! Nudity is awesome! All of that, taken on its own, is great stuff.

Context is what makes any form of expression, sexual or non, socially charged or not, meaningful. Honestly, there's nothing intrinsically "wrong" about almost any one image. It's the image PLUS all the other images PLUS the attitude of comics writers and artists PLUS the community's reactions to them that make up a salad of suck.

To express some of the problem: an industry that consistently can't do anything with women on the covers of their own book, and frequently inside the pages, but twist them into poses to appeal to the viewer? Even if sexuality isn't a part of their character? Even if modesty and conservatism are parts of their character? Even if they're fucking underage? A consistent, overbearing sense in too many comics that the first priority of female characters is be appealing to the sexual desires of the stereotypical broman demo--even when that's totally inappropriate to the context or character?

Less awesome! Honestly kinda sucks!

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here