|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 6, 2017 12:05:54 GMT -5
Well said, Confessor. The rabbit doesn't bother me so much today.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jul 6, 2017 14:58:20 GMT -5
Nudity isn't always indicative of sex. I have never had the desire to self pleasure to a comic book or even once to Betty Page, despite the covers or photos being sexy. To me the difference between anything in this thread over some 5 minute porn clip on the internet is that none of this is about sex. It's merely using the male/female body to draw attention to a buyer. I think that's a little bit disingenuous. As you say, these covers use the female body to draw attention to a buyer, but as such, they are directly using sex to that end. It's like the old adage says, "sex sells". There's no nudity in this thread at all (because that would be against the forum rules), but the thread is still a procession of covers that a) portray women as eye candy or sex objects -- so, titillation to sell the comic to horny young males -- , and b) are presented entirely without context or critical analysis -- they're just there for the viewer to ogle. Obviously its not as graphic or exploitative as a porn clip, but this is a comics forum, not pornhub. As I said over in the photobucket thread a few days ago, I don't believe that this thread reflects particularly well on our otherwise very thoughtful, considered and (dare I say it) intellectual community. Imagine how you'd feel if you were a female who was thinking of joining our community and you saw this thread? We're not a bunch of immature, basement-dwelling horn-dogs here (most of us are middle-aged married men!), but to anyone outside looking in, that thread might suggest that we are. Not that I'm suggesting that we'd have lots more female members if not for this thread at all -- I don't believe that to be the case for a second. But still, I don't think this thread casts our community in the best light. Still, that's only my opinion and I certainly have no beef with those who like to contribute to this thread. I'm sure that plenty of folks like the thread and that's perfectly fine with me. I totally respect their right to enjoy a thread that I don't particularly care for. I've read your counter point several times, and while I agree that this thread can be viewed in a negative manner, from others (members or not) I think that mindset is a lot of what people here feel. And it's no less disingenuous for me to say what I did, then it is to assume potential female members would be offended by this. Sex has always sold. Barring not knowing the contents of a Blonde Phantom comic, many of those covers were sexy (and a few in this week's cover contest are) and I don't think that the publishers of those comics were naive to not try and play that up and it was all coincidental. No more than a lot of the "bad girl" comics of the 90's did. I just think here, a lot of those comics are felt like smut, and so their presence in here makes members feel its offensive. That's just my perception. Perhaps that this thread devolved from what the original OP asked to just a parade of sexy comic covers, is where the distaste comes. I have no issue discussing sex and it's use in comics. Perhaps a more intellectual look at sex in comics, with posting covers as an example would foster better conversation on how sex used to sell comics is viewed by members. Which I feel like this thread has been about at points. Either way, I do agree with you in that if it's here I am fine with it, and if it weren't I am fine with it. Neither outcome would drive me away from this forum. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,219 
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 6, 2017 18:26:36 GMT -5
Perhaps that this thread devolved from what the original OP asked to just a parade of sexy comic covers, is where the distaste comes. I have no issue discussing sex and it's use in comics. Perhaps a more intellectual look at sex in comics, with posting covers as an example would foster better conversation on how sex used to sell comics is viewed by members. See, this is one of the main problems with this thread: it's wandered way off topic. The OP was asking whether any of us had ever been persuaded to buy a comic solely because of its sexy cover. That's a perfectly sound idea for a thread because it allows the posting of sexy comic covers with some context, analysis and discussion. I have zero problem with that. But this thread hasn't been about that for a very long time. |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 6, 2017 20:22:13 GMT -5
Perhaps that this thread devolved from what the original OP asked to just a parade of sexy comic covers, is where the distaste comes. I have no issue discussing sex and it's use in comics. Perhaps a more intellectual look at sex in comics, with posting covers as an example would foster better conversation on how sex used to sell comics is viewed by members. See, this is one of the main problems with this thread: it's wandered way off topic. The OP was asking whether any of us had ever been persuaded to buy a comic solely because of its sexy cover. That's a perfectly sound idea for a thread because it allows the posting of sexy comic covers with some context, analysis and discussion. I have zero problem with that. But this thread hasn't been about that for a very long time. but it could go back to that; i doubt anyone, even sjw’s , would have a complaint with it then. Since the inherent over-arching question of the thread is truly neutral. Saucy pics are not required except for the sake of underscoring a premise to a tenet. for myself, i wouldn’t mind posting on how illustrating naughty stuff, on very rare occasions, was a very mixed bag, philosophically and emotionally. if you guys do go back to that, the thread title could benefit from a modification, since as-it-stands, probably 50% of folks seeing it would expect salacious proto-fappery. |
|
|
|
Post by Outrajs on Jul 27, 2017 18:36:44 GMT -5
I thought this might make an interesting topic, while at the same time keeping it clean. How many of you have bought a comic, simply because the girl drawn on the cover was sexy in some way? Be honest.Here is an example, I remember buying this one in the 80's.  I remember in the story, the girl ends up wearing an outfit kind of like Slave Leia in JEDI but it was red and silk I think, and this was DC doing it too. Anyone else want to share their sexy Comic book cover story? Here is a question....are we talking "sexy" or "slutty"? Are they the same thing? Nothing wrong with it...they are visual books after all. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 11:01:05 GMT -5
I thought this might make an interesting topic, while at the same time keeping it clean. How many of you have bought a comic, simply because the girl drawn on the cover was sexy in some way? Be honest.Here is an example, I remember buying this one in the 80's. I remember in the story, the girl ends up wearing an outfit kind of like Slave Leia in JEDI but it was red and silk I think, and this was DC doing it too. Anyone else want to share their sexy Comic book cover story? Here is a question....are we talking "sexy" or "slutty"? Are they the same thing? Nothing wrong with it...they are visual books after all. Something like this will be acceptable for all parties involved and it's not an easy thing to do and I spent a good half hour searching for a good example for this thread. I don't want to offend anyone and I felt it would be best if you post covers similar like this one below. Adventures of Superman #583 |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 29, 2017 7:47:47 GMT -5
CC offered a exemplary post above.
impossible to call it 'slutty'.
maybe even cal it sexy.
if anything, it seems to genuflect* to a noble feminine archetype.
*this is not a sarcastic or pejorative word from my lips.
|
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 29, 2017 8:32:15 GMT -5
the difficulty in discussing this issue is separating 'noble' sexy from 'fappage'. there are 'rated G' covers from the silver-age which people whom love helen mirren in Excalibur would consider 'sexy'. fans of greg land art would not.  |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 29, 2017 9:54:15 GMT -5
it's hard discussing this from a 'freelancer' perspective, i must add.
you have what 'you' (the artist) considers 'sexy. and maybe that's lucille ball in 'Stage Door' (she was yum yum in that film, never showing any 'skin').
then the editor whom pays you is a raquel welch guy. not the same.
then the group editor sees the sales from the work of Cho, and THAT gets thrown into the mix.
and if this is going on in the mid 90's, you have everyone wanting to compete with Danzig's 'verotique' line of comics (barf).
and it all becomes a cluster-f!$ck unless you're Adam Hughes.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Aug 19, 2017 15:19:57 GMT -5
|
|
bran
Full Member
Posts: 227
|
Post by bran on Aug 20, 2017 11:36:19 GMT -5
from Elaine Lee's and Kaluta's Starstruck:  they had to do color reconstruction for digital release. so there are now (at least) 3 different editions. the second one was cencored (but has some extra chapters)... |
|
|
|
Post by Jeddak on Aug 20, 2017 12:01:45 GMT -5
I like my sexy with a sense of humor. Some guys try too hard. And no, this isn't a real cover. But I'd totally buy it if it was.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 14:34:26 GMT -5
Blonde Phantom #17 One of my favorite covers and my dear friend picked up this book yesterday for me and I wanted to share this book in this thread seeing two gorgeous dames one in a red gown and another one in black. Got it and now this is one of the earliest Black Phantom books that I have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeddak on Aug 21, 2017 22:22:04 GMT -5
To return, sort of, to the original idea of this thread - would I buy this book based on the cover? On the one hand, Raven looks good. On the other hand, the background is lacking. And the concentric circles in the upper left corner, the sun, the sun's rays, the waterfall, the foliage, bothers me. It's off, and distracting. On the other hand, I've always liked the character. And she does look good. On the other hand, as a fan of the Wolfman/Perez era, this scene seems out of character for her. Am I intrigued enough to see what's going on, or does the possibly cavalier treatment of the character turn me off? Bottom line - would I buy this book, based solely on this cover? Maybe, but I'd have to say probably not. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeddak on Aug 21, 2017 22:28:54 GMT -5
from Elaine Lee's and Kaluta's Starstruck: they had to do color reconstruction for digital release. so there are now (at least) 3 different editions. the second one was cencored (but has some extra chapters)... Would I buy this book, based on the cover? I like Kaluta's work, and the woman on the bed is attractive. But your attention is drawn to the standing woman. And I don't like her pose. The arched back, trying to show some side boob while still keeping the focus on her butt - it's awkward and off-putting. Plus I don't like the coloring. Dark, kinda washed out, highlights on the skin, drawing our eyes to what we'd already be looking at. Bottom line -would I buy this book based on the cover? Nope. |
|
