Is this a joke?

Unknown

http://i.imgur.com/MQ911cE.jpg

So listen. I understand someone has been clearly cracking the whip on the mods, and I understand it's a job and you do what you have to do, but are we really going to turn this into DISNEY's marvel puzzle quest? I made a joke about the (then) current controversy surrounding Spider Woman's cover. You can read more about this WIDELY discussed topic here:
http://io9.com/check-out-spider-woman-1 ... 1624535918

You might notice this site doesn't have a "if you're under 18 avoid this like the plague" warning before you read the story. You might also notice that the word **** is mentioned in many cartoons and basically any and all TV shows.

What the hell is going on? Does this forum not have room for adults now? Do you mods have ANY guidelines? Are you just censuring things at random to show you're not useless? That post was months old.

Buret0

Sexist and vulgar? Okay.

Let's talk about your Moonstone animations.

GothicKratos

To be honest with ya, I saw that Report and I glossed over it to think about what I wanted to do with it.

On one hand, you can pretty easily throw that under 5c (Posting offensive material. This includes anything that could be considered racially, religiously, or sexually demeaning or insulting.), so it's removal isn't unwarranted.

However, on the other hand, I don't really think, personally, the comment was "offensive" (but arguably "sexually demeaning"). It actually made me laugh but I don't think that counts as an official qualifier.

I'm not sure which mod did it off-hand, but they chose to take action and deleting the post was really the only action to take. I'm not sure what you could have edited that to. When I would have got around to it, I probably would have done the same thing.

In closing, I guess I'll say that it's not really a thing I'd read and go "I need to mod this!", but since it was reported, I feel like it's the right idea to lean toward caution.

aesthetocyst

ArkPrime wrote:

http://i.imgur.com/MQ911cE.[url=jpghttp://io9.com/check-out-spider-woman-1-starring-spider-womans-****-1624535918]jpghttp://io9.com/check-out-spider-woma ... 1624535918[/url]

Link lead to some hilarious stories and commentary. Thanks for that!

Malcrof

Funny part is, noone complained when it was parker in the same pose


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2yEA6L06bhc/V ... rwoman.jpg

Unknown

I remember that post cause I wanted to upvote it but got distracted

GothicKratos

Malcrof wrote:

Funny part is, noone complained when it was parker in the same pose


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2yEA6L06bhc/V ... rwoman.jpg

That is a slippery slope of Tumblr Justice (tm) for another post!

Unknown

Would the mod in question care to comment or do his contractual obligations not cover talking to us filthy peasants?

Unknown

Malcrof wrote:

Funny part is, noone complained when it was parker in the same pose


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2yEA6L06bhc/V ... rwoman.jpg

Weird age we live in, where people spend their time looking for things to be offended by

GrimSkald

Malcrof wrote:

Funny part is, noone complained when it was parker in the same pose


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2yEA6L06bhc/V ... rwoman.jpg

That's not the same pose. It has superficial similarities, but Parker is crouching on top of a ball of webbing, while Spider Woman is slinking onto a roof. Her butt is at a much more upward-tilted angle, her spine is curved out, her face is in a different position. I'm not saying there aren't some really weird bits to the Spider-Man picture (the fabric on his rear is doing the same weird thing as hers, and I can't even begin to guess what is going on with his fingers,) but the intention is very clearly different. Spider-Man's pose shows strength, albiet in some weird, inhuman ways. Jessica's doesn't - it shows submission/seduction.

Unknown

GrimSkald wrote:

Malcrof wrote:

Funny part is, noone complained when it was parker in the same pose


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2yEA6L06bhc/V ... rwoman.jpg

That's not the same pose. It has superficial similarities, but Parker is crouching on top of a ball of webbing, while Spider Woman is slinking onto a roof. Her butt is at a much more upward-tilted angle, her spine is curved out, her face is in a different position. I'm not saying there aren't some really weird bits to the Spider-Man picture (the fabric on his rear is doing the same weird thing as hers, and I can't even begin to guess what is going on with his fingers,) but the intention is very clearly different. Spider-Man's pose shows strength, albiet in some weird, inhuman ways. Jessica's doesn't - it shows submission/seduction.

That's ****. Superheroes in general are just naked people painted in various colors. There is no such thing as an act being "sexual" in a vacuum. For foot fetishists, a sandal catalog is porn. For people who like necks, women who sweep their hair back from their faces is erotic. A superhero with "spider" on her name squatting is nothing to talk about.

Do people go to the Louvre and scream horrified when there's a bunch of naked people made of marble?

CrookedKnight

ArkPrime wrote:

Weird age we live in, where people spend their time looking for things to be offended by

I just died of irony. You will receive a bill from my undertaker, which I assure you will give you something new to get indignant over.

Unknown

CrookedKnight wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

Weird age we live in, where people spend their time looking for things to be offended by

I just died of irony. You will receive a bill from my undertaker, which I assure you will give you something new to get indignant over.

What, because I complained about my post being removed? That's me going out of my way to be offended by something? Did you get your concept of irony from Alanis Morisette?

Unknown

ArkPrime wrote:

That's ****. Superheroes in general are just naked people painted in various colors. There is no such thing as an act being "sexual" in a vacuum. For foot fetishists, a sandal catalog is porn. For people who like necks, women who sweep their hair back from their faces is erotic. A superhero with "spider" on her name squatting is nothing to talk about.

Do people go to the Louvre and scream horrified when there's a bunch of naked people made of marble?

This sounds like you're just trying to draw out an argument here. I don't think it requires any kind of kink or fetish to look at that image and understand that it's intended to be somewhat erotic.

GothicKratos

I'll bite on the somewhat off-topic tangent.

It's not because it's Spider-Man versus Spider-Woman, it's because it is man versus woman (and the subtle differences in the poses).

The pose Peter is in he is in a rigid form - in a pouncing stance - which is a sign of dominance and strength.

The pose that Jessica is in, she body is sloped downwardly - looking up toward your perspective - which is a display of submissiveness, which is (wrongly) attributed to weakness.

That being said, I've been told that the guy that drew this cover for Jessica is practically a comic book porn author. I'd say he drew her sexualized on purpose. Not to demean her, but definitely on purpose.

Unknown

adamLmpq wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

That's ****. Superheroes in general are just naked people painted in various colors. There is no such thing as an act being "sexual" in a vacuum. For foot fetishists, a sandal catalog is porn. For people who like necks, women who sweep their hair back from their faces is erotic. A superhero with "spider" on her name squatting is nothing to talk about.

Do people go to the Louvre and scream horrified when there's a bunch of naked people made of marble?

This sounds like you're just trying to draw out an argument here. I don't think it requires any kind of kink or fetish to look at that image and understand that it's intended to be somewhat erotic.

Yeah, this is how discussions work. You say "I see that you're trying to extend this conversation, but clearly I'm right, so lets just leave it at that"

And yes of course this is all off topic. The topic is all mentions of the word "****" referring to a body part should warrant the removal of a post. Bearing in mind that "kick ****" refers to that body part. I hope this post isn't too offensive btw

GothicKratos

I'll bite on that one too, actually.

Your statement was a direct correlation to sexualizing a body part. It's rather PG-13, I admit, but that is still the case.

Saying something is "kick ****" is not sexualized in any way. It literally means it kicked a donkey.

Context is an important part of language.

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

I'll bite on that one too, actually.

Your statement was a direct correlation to sexualizing a body part. It's rather PG-13, I admit, but that is still the case.

Saying something is "kick ****" is not sexualized in any way. It literally means it kicked a donkey.

You're making an argument you don't believe in. You know it has no legs. There's no reason to keep this discussion going. I'd like to hear from the censor.

Malcrof

GrimSkald wrote:

Malcrof wrote:

Funny part is, noone complained when it was parker in the same pose


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2yEA6L06bhc/V ... rwoman.jpg

That's not the same pose. It has superficial similarities, but Parker is crouching on top of a ball of webbing, while Spider Woman is slinking onto a roof. Her butt is at a much more upward-tilted angle, her spine is curved out, her face is in a different position. I'm not saying there aren't some really weird bits to the Spider-Man picture (the fabric on his rear is doing the same weird thing as hers, and I can't even begin to guess what is going on with his fingers,) but the intention is very clearly different. Spider-Man's pose shows strength, albiet in some weird, inhuman ways. Jessica's doesn't - it shows submission/seduction.

Actually it is one of his signature poses, it has been on numerous covers and in many different situations. That is just one.

here is another


unless you prefer the beak

Unknown

Malcrof wrote:

GrimSkald wrote:

Malcrof wrote:

Funny part is, noone complained when it was parker in the same pose


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2yEA6L06bhc/V ... rwoman.jpg

That's not the same pose. It has superficial similarities, but Parker is crouching on top of a ball of webbing, while Spider Woman is slinking onto a roof. Her butt is at a much more upward-tilted angle, her spine is curved out, her face is in a different position. I'm not saying there aren't some really weird bits to the Spider-Man picture (the fabric on his rear is doing the same weird thing as hers, and I can't even begin to guess what is going on with his fingers,) but the intention is very clearly different. Spider-Man's pose shows strength, albiet in some weird, inhuman ways. Jessica's doesn't - it shows submission/seduction.

Actually it is one of his signature poses, it has been on numerous covers and in many different situations. That is just one.

Let's just nip this in the bud by posting this image.


Anyone ever see a female superhero depicted in this pose?

GrimSkald

ArkPrime wrote:

GrimSkald wrote:

Malcrof wrote:

Funny part is, noone complained when it was parker in the same pose


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2yEA6L06bhc/V ... rwoman.jpg

That's not the same pose. It has superficial similarities, but Parker is crouching on top of a ball of webbing, while Spider Woman is slinking onto a roof. Her butt is at a much more upward-tilted angle, her spine is curved out, her face is in a different position. I'm not saying there aren't some really weird bits to the Spider-Man picture (the fabric on his rear is doing the same weird thing as hers, and I can't even begin to guess what is going on with his fingers,) but the intention is very clearly different. Spider-Man's pose shows strength, albiet in some weird, inhuman ways. Jessica's doesn't - it shows submission/seduction.

That's ****. Superheroes in general are just naked people painted in various colors. There is no such thing as an act being "sexual" in a vacuum. For foot fetishists, a sandal catalog is porn. For people who like necks, women who sweep their hair back from their faces is erotic. A superhero with "spider" on her name squatting is nothing to talk about.

Do people go to the Louvre and scream horrified when there's a bunch of naked people made of marble?

Poses mean things. Sure, both poses are squatting, but they're very different squats (I can't believe I just used that sentance. Ah well.) Parker's is just kind of weird - it kind of says "spider" and there's a certain amount of dominance in it, but it really isn't saying anything to the looker. Jessica's pose is actively sending out sexual signals - she's posing like a stipper or maybe someone from a 80s hair-band video.

You can make the arguement "but that's what sells," and we can argue about that all day. Is it right or wrong? That's not what I'm calling into question. What I'm saying is that those poses are not the same at all. One pose is overtly sexual, the other is not.