Is this a joke?

aesthetocyst

ArkPrime wrote:

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?

Ark, after being clued in to what your removed comment was in reference to, I got the joke, and it was funny. Crass, but funny. If you had provided links to in the posts that was removed for the benefit of those unaware, I think the situation might be different. Reading the note from the mod, maybe not....I am guessing the mod was also unaware, and may be taking a very conservative approach to "profanity" anyway.

I saw the removed comment in its orginal context. Without the reference material, all it was was you, responding to a call for Spiderwomen in the game, with a crack about that poster having a certain fetish. Knowing the reference, very witty. Not knowing the reference, it looked completely random.

Unknown

I will say I don't know if it warranted a deleted post. I will say though you are sexualizing Spider-Woman. You are saying the only reason that he wants a her in game is because she has a nice derriere, when in fact the poster could like her as a hero.

I really like Kamala Khan comics. It has nothing to do with her looks or anything of that manner. They are well written, good comics. (flame away internet). In the old days of marvel every female character had to be insanely hot and showing pretty much everything, those days are gone.

Even Black Widows outfit in the cinematic universe doesn't show cleavage. It is skin tight but not open on the top.

I still don't think your post should have been deleted, but don't act like you were not making a sexualized comment.

Unknown

aesthetocyst wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

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?

Ark, after being clued in to what your removed comment was in reference to, I got the joke, and it was funny. Crass, but funny. If you had provided links to in the posts that was removed for the benefit of those unaware, I think the situation might be different. Reading the note from the mod, maybe not....I am guessing the mod was also unaware, and may be taking a very conservative approach to "profanity" anyway.

I saw the removed comment in its orginal context. Without the reference material, all it was was you, responding to a call for Spiderwomen in the game, with a crack about that poster having a certain fetish. Knowing the reference, very witty. Not knowing the reference, it looked completely random.

Is it that crazy to assume people playing marvel puzzle quest are aware of something about a marvel character that was all over the news?

DrStrange-616

ArkPrime wrote:

Is it that crazy to assume people playing marvel puzzle quest are aware of something about a marvel character that was all over the news?

Knowing the reference is what makes it funny(ish), but it doesn't make it less sexualized.

It's a slippery slope - yes, the dreaded SS!. Clearly, the mod who yanked it is erring on the side of caution.

Malcrof

Check this article out, it is worth the read.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/comic ... nt-2-93960

and let us NOT forget the Marvel Swimsuit Editions...


In 1992, Marvel decided to copy SI’s success by launching their own swimsuit special. This all-pinup book features scantily clad heroes, both male and female, as rendered by some of the finest artists in the business. These include the brothers Hildebrandt, Joe Jusko, P. Craig Russell, and countless others.

aesthetocyst

ArkPrime wrote:

Is it that crazy to assume people playing marvel puzzle quest are aware of something about a marvel character that was all over the news?

Making assumptions in a public discussion is risky, yes. It's even riskier on online forums where the give and take is very limited. Misunderstandings are so easy to get into online.

GrimSkald

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.

here is another


unless you prefer the beak

That's kind of funny, the first of your pictures is kind of like the redraw of the cover that this woman did.

http://lesstitsnass.tumblr.com/post/952 ... kickingass

It's all about the spine and hips, really. On the flip side I don't know what the heck is going on with Spidey's leg there. It looks weird. It is a lot closer, but it doesn't read nearly as sexual.

Unknown

traedoril wrote:

I will say I don't know if it warranted a deleted post. I will say though you are sexualizing Spider-Woman.

Yeah it was a joke. Do they have jokes where you're from? People sometimes day absurd things in jokes for the sake of humor. People aren't actually discussing the reasons why a chicken would cross a road.

aesthetocyst

Malcrof wrote:

Check this article out, it is worth the read.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/comic ... nt-2-93960

and let us NOT forget the Marvel Swimsuit Editions...


In 1992, Marvel decided to copy SI’s success by launching their own swimsuit special. This all-pinup book features scantily clad heroes, both male and female, as rendered by some of the finest artists in the business. These include the brothers Hildebrandt, Joe Jusko, P. Craig Russell, and countless others.

Haha, I remember those "Swimsuit Editions".

The spider's are always show in bizarre poses. Being all spider-y. That people see different messages in the pose based on gender of the subject is nothing new. Says as much about the viewer as the artist.

Unknown

ArkPrime wrote:

traedoril wrote:

I will say I don't know if it warranted a deleted post. I will say though you are sexualizing Spider-Woman.

Yeah it was a joke. Do they have jokes where you're from? People sometimes day absurd things in jokes for the sake of humor. People aren't actually discussing the reasons why a chicken would cross a road.

They do have jokes where I come from here is one:

Knock Knock

Who's there?

Its time for Sexist comments to stop

Its time for Sexist comments to stop Who?

ArkPrime

JVReal

I didn't find the post offensive at all, not sure why it was deleted. You were talking about the person you quoted, nowhere did you demean women. Women are proud of their bodies, and strive to have nice rear-ends, go to the gym to firm them up, and tone them, and then wear yoga pants and other tight pants to show it off... and when someone says that someone else may appreciate said rear end... it's demeaning to the woman?

If the post called her a piece-of-rear end... well then he would be demeaning her and simplifying all that she is into a body part.

Seinfeld had entire episode using the term.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tujqM2u-BVo

Malcrof

GrimSkald wrote:

That's kind of funny, the first of your pictures is kind of like the redraw of the cover that this woman did.

http://lesstitsnass.tumblr.com/post/952 ... kickingass

It's all about the spine and hips, really. On the flip side I don't know what the heck is going on with Spidey's leg there. It looks weird. It is a lot closer, but it doesn't read nearly as sexual.

Omg the comments on Silk are priceless!

Ok each time i look, i see something different..

She even uses Boing, Paf!

GothicKratos

Gunna have to ask people to dial the knob back a few notches. It's okay to explore the subject of "sexualizing" or demeaning people, since it has to do with the topic at hand, but let's be civil about it. No need to call someone a sexist, especially extrapolating from one comment about a woman's butt, for example.

Thanks for understanding!

Unknown

Yes, I went to far and feel free to delete the post. I apologize, women's rights and Sexism are things I am very passionate about.

To ArkPrime: I am sorry for the comment.

Malcrof

My final word on the actual OP. This being an internet forum and all, if kids are on this forum, and posting no less.. this means they are not internet novices, and nothing in this forum will ever be worse than something they can google.. even with parental filters on.

Unknown

traedoril wrote:

Yes, I went to far and feel free to delete the post. I apologize, women's rights and Sexism are things I am very passionate about.

To ArkPrime: I am sorry for the comment.

There is a vast chasm between feeling passionate about something and calling names like a child. Eloquent people don't need direct personal attacks. I'd tell you what to do with your apology but apparently I can't use the words I'd need

spawn2012

Anyone ever see a female superhero depicted in this pose?

Now that's sexist! Why aren't there girls in those poses? WHY girl version of tarzan should wear anything, and not be topless? BI-STANDARDS, feminists, pseudosexists ****, thats what all this is.

I ask "WHO gives a f"?

Unknown

spawn2012 wrote:

Anyone ever see a female superhero depicted in this pose?

Now that's sexist! Why aren't there girls in those poses? WHY girl version of tarzan should wear anything, and not be topless? BI-STANDARDS, feminists, pseudosexists ****, thats what all this is.

I ask "WHO gives a f"?

Beware, this sort of joke may be considered as sexist, and may annoy some people in a public area.

Read the thread. A lot of people apparently. And it's human females, you horrible sexist monster. Woman has 'man' in it, it's a slave name

Edited by: fight4thedream

DaveR4470

"Whut's wrong wit bein' sexy?"

- Nigel Tufnel

Unknown

This video sums up the Spiderwoman variant cover issue better than most:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB6TiRJNI-Q

Fair warning: since "****" is apparently controversial here, there are far worse words in the video.