PPG sexy comic book cover

[Kheldarson]

wait, so guys being sexy and strong looking is appealing to male power, but women looking sexy and strong is demeaning to women? i don't get it. as a women, i find the idea of women being able to be strong AND sexual AND smart to be empowering. then again, i also know that comics where the women are depicted as very sexual are MEANT FOR ADULTS!

I find the idea of a woman being strong, sexy, and smart to be empowering...if it's a real depiction of a woman. Most female supers are ridiculously shaped, not only in size but in poses. They're an unrealistic ideal to a greater extreme.

And before you make the argument that so are the guys, let me ask this: who's easier to achieve a closer likeness to Superman or Supergirl? With Superman, a guy can actually go out and work out and achieve a fitness level that can make him feel/look close to his idol. What does a girl have to do to look like Supergirl? Go get surgery more than likely. That's a major difference to me.

like, seriously, that starfire article annoyed me. giving a kid the adult version of a comic and making them uncomfortable over their favorite character when designed for an adult audience is both ridiculous to do, and mean to the kid. a 7 year old should not be reading any and all comics on the market, some are just NOT for kids. hell the page on the comic he's using as an example, that he showed his daughter, is two characters talking about having sex! yet the parent just handed it to their 7 year old?
seriously, would you hand your kid a copy of Purgatori, Crossed, Night of the living dead? heck, should a 7 year old kid be reading the Avenger's Academy Arena games, which is basically a Battle Royale? or the darker, adult batman comics full of psychological issues and death?

i get people are concerned with kid's and their concepts of body image. but by the time they should be reading comics with that level of violent and sexual content, they should already have it hammered in their head from their parents the difference between fantasy and reality.

I'm sorry that I just linked one article on it that gave a good summary of the issue. Shall I share more?

http://www.blastr.com/2011/09/has_dc...up_two_mor.php

http://comicsalliance.com/starfire-c...-superheroine/

http://www.autostraddle.com/super-t-...arfire-117766/

http://wtfdccomics.wordpress.com/201...f-dc-starfire/

As to handing the kid the comic, sure, the parent should've perhaps done more due diligence. But at the same time, there's an indication that the child has been reading DC for a while. That she's seen Starfire in previous incarnations, not just from Teen Titans. So the parent is functioning on prior knowledge that the series and comic, while perhaps a bit risque, have been at a suitable understanding for their child. They felt comfortable going ahead with this company, just to have the reboot go so far the deep end into T&A territory it's ridiculous.

and, i'm sure many women can speak from experience on this one. it's far more damaging to hear our moms go one about all the flaws she hates in herself. the weight she needs to loose, the hair she hates, her skintone, she needs to hit the gym more, blah blah. and to look in the mirror and see those same flaws she is disparaging. it's far more damaging to hear parents say how you should change your hair/ clothes/ diet/ etc so you can be prettier. THAT shit screws up a kid more than any comic could.

seriously. by the time i began reading comics that would be considered adult (purgatori being one), i was already an obese preteen from the original PTSD weight i gained, and the yoyo diets my mother made me join her on. seeing depictions of female characters that were comfortable in their own skin, regardless of how different they were from other people, was a very empowering thing. that is the kind of stuff that helped me see that it's all about how you perceive yourself, not what others want you to be. sure, she was hot, and half naked most the time. but it was her preference to be herself, in all her demonic awesomeness, instead of hiding herself by disguising as just another human, that stuck with me more than what her costumes were like.

Hi. Female. Yes, I got weight issues from my mom. But I also got image issues from getting this constant image of the perfect hourglass in my preferred media (video games and comics). There's very few females I can actually cosplay. There are very few I can look at and go, she seems like me. And the few that I could, well, they keep getting remade into "sexier" versions.

Heck, even the recent fighting game, [i]Injustice[i], couldn't resist making all the women look like they were simpering across the fighting stage. And I realize fighting games are, again, more for guys, but these are supposed to be competent fighters. I don't think an arm posed to the side as we cross step our way to an opponent is a good fighting style.

[siead_lietrathua]

ok, just gonna go down point by point since i'm sleepy:

GK:
- target maket =/= only audience. just because women are not the target audience doen't mean that they cannot glean messages from them.
- if we are going to bash comics for having female characters designed to be sex objects for male fantasy, then we should also be tossing both romance novels, and many "teenybopper" (for lack of a better word) books like Twilight in that same pyre.
- the comic geeks i know don't just love the female characters for their apperances, but their attitudes. they don't just like harleen because she's hot but because she's a damaged, goofball sociopath.
- i think the hawkeye initiative is nothing more than a running joke. i don't take it seriously because i don't take the idea of fictional characters being objectified seriously, in an adult-target market.
- if we're gonna get mad over idiotic humor-moments like a teen taking pics of her, then the deadpool naked in a bathtub making winky jokes should have the net FURIOUS.
- i've read articles on that character before posting. her "ditsyness" was canon amnesia traits of her species regarding earthlings. her lack of give a fuck over clothing is also canon, and her sexuality being free. she's just more "cold" about it now. hell later in comics with her, she apperantly starts to regain memories of being around grayson before, which is a fairly neat part over how bonded they were.
- saw the image of the guy starfire before as well. earned no more than a shrug. same as the female one. then again, sexuality doesn't bother me, nor should it really bother any non-purtanical adult... because these are NOT comics ment for kids.

Kheldarson:
- i don't think it's easy for most average men to go to the gym and come out looking like many male characters in comics. because not all men have the body type that allow that sort of muscling (hell i've seen pro wresters that can't pull off that kind of muscle). same as the women that wouldn't look like the superheroines. and people shouldn't asipre to look like them because it's FICTION. again, if we know the diffrence between fantasy and reality, than this should be a non-issue. it would make as much sense getting upset because we can't be green like she-hulk as to be mad we don't have powergirl's rack.
- again, read articles on her character, see above but the main issue was not her being sexual, but of her being cold about it. she's always been a sexual character.
- this is not just a lack of due diligance. if i am expected to belive he brought home a red hood comic, just because it had starfire on the cover (near the back), for his kid, without checking it for age-appropriateness... well, i ain't that gullible. expecially when, from googling, the cover for that comic is very much a guns-blazing, violent comic obviously not targeted to her age group. which it isn't. it deals with murder, suicide, and yes, sex. Red Hood comics aren't known for being tame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hood_and_the_Outlaws
that parent was, in all my honest opinion, exploiting their kid for blog views, making him much worse than the authors in my opinion.
- the idea that comic, or really any media, characters have to be designed to look like us is something i do not understand. we are supposed to love these characters for their attitudes, not just their apperances. and from the sheer volume of plus-size cosplayers i see at cons every year, i'm not alone in thinking it's the love of the character that matters, and not the bodytype of the fans.


on a siddenote: why should we even really care if women in comics were 100% only there for men to wank to. men are allowed fantasy material as much as any woman is.
it seriously reminds me of these memes.
http://screwedonstraight.net/wp-cont...10-12-meme.jpg
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/62/6259...cdc2eff4ce.jpg

[Gravekeeper]

- target maket =/= only audience. just because women are not the target audience doen't mean that they cannot glean messages from them.

I didn't say that, in fact that's the complete anti-thesis of what I'm saying.

- if we are going to bash comics for having female characters designed to be sex objects for male fantasy, then we should also be tossing both romance novels, and many "teenybopper" (for lack of a better word) books like Twilight in that same pyre.

Irrelevant. No one said otherwise. Also, romance novels are not a visual medium.

- the comic geeks i know don't just love the female characters for their apperances, but their attitudes. they don't just like harleen because she's hot but because she's a damaged, goofball sociopath.

Again, you're completely missing things. It was widely criticized not just for being an awful objectification but also for completely ruining her character. IE fans of the character were mad over changes to the character herself, not just the blatant sexualization.

- i think the hawkeye initiative is nothing more than a running joke. i don't take it seriously because i don't take the idea of fictional characters being objectified seriously, in an adult-target market.

If you can't see the sexual objectification of fictional women in the media as a problem, then I frankly have no idea what else to say to you other than that you're horribly wrong. "Adult target market" doesn't make it okay. Unless you're going to sit there and seriously tell me that all women shed body image and self esteem issues upon reaching 18.

- if we're gonna get mad over idiotic humor-moments like a teen taking pics of her, then the deadpool naked in a bathtub making winky jokes should have the net FURIOUS.

Another false equivalency.

- i've read articles on that character before posting. her "ditsyness" was canon amnesia traits of her species regarding earthlings. her lack of give a fuck over clothing is also canon, and her sexuality being free. she's just more "cold" about it now.

Er, no, the amnesia traits of her species regarding Earthlings and the I'll fuck anything because emotion has nothing to do with it attitude is from the very reboot people were complaining about.

Prior to this her species were a warrior race who were pretty much ruled by their emotions. Hence the reboot is a total 180 on the original canon and a 180 on her character. Now she can't tell humans apart, hits up strangers for sex, has no real emotions or personality and basically just takes orders to blow things up while thrusting her tits out.

Yes, she has was a sexually liberated character before, but it was in a vastly more positive sense. She slept with people she actually liked. Now she just asks strangers to fuck her because whatever. The entire basis of her sexually liberated personality is how emotional her race is. They were free love polyamorous hippies basically. Not amnesic sex dolls.

Old Starfire would have sex with you because she liked you, cared for you and found you interesting. She was a supportive friend and lover.

New Starfire will have sex with you for existing and doesn't give a rat's ass about you one way or another.

DC rebooted everything and many of the iconic female characters received similar wank material reworkings. Stripping them of powers, personality and clothes in equal measure.

I mean have you seen what they did to poor Harley Quinn? >.>

- saw the image of the guy starfire before as well. earned no more than a shrug. same as the female one. then again, sexuality doesn't bother me, nor should it really bother any non-purtanical adult... because these are NOT comics ment for kids.

You are so missing the point I'm not even sure where to start. We're not talking about sexuality, we're talking about sexualization and objectification. They're not the same thing.

Let me quote from a Fempop Magazine article that sums it up better than I:

Let me describe for you a scenario. Batwing, “the Batman of Africa”, is portrayed in his book as a strong minority character. He’s flawed, but still heroic. The artwork depicts him as handsome and powerful. The good guys unfailingly treat him with dignity and respect, and those who do not quickly realize the error of their ways.

Then, in another Batman comic, the Dark Knight comes across a black police officer guarding a suspect he needs access to. Being hip to the black condition, Batman figures any African-American would be not only corrupt, but stupidly corrupt, so he offers the man twenty bucks to get a snack.

“Sheeeeeit,” the black man replies, “I sho could go fo’ some fried chicken rights about now! Feet don’t fail me, lawdy!”

The fandom goes into an uproar. They want to know how a black man could be portrayed in such a racist manner. DC replies “Oh, this comic is for white people. We’re depicting the black characters to make the whites look good. Batwing is the comic for African-Americans. If you want to see minority characters treated well, you’ll have to buy that.”

That’s how DC Comics treats women. It’s commendable that they aim comics like Supergirl at women (even if it’d be nicer to take comics women were already invested in, like Batgirl or Birds of Prey, and leave them the hell alone, just like they do for men). But if some comics are for women and the rest say that women are nothing more than the ink that can be splattered on their tits, that’s not feminism.

It’s appeasement. And it won’t work.

[siead_lietrathua]

wow, that feminism blog is ridiculous. i'm sorry, but i do not consider how women are treated in comics to be horrible. especially by DC comics where there are incredibly strong female characters. maybe i'm in the minority. i don't care.

to people over 18 losing body image issues: i never said that. i said adults can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and that they don't look like a COMIC CHARACTER should not bother any sensible adult because it's FICTION. not having big boobs like powergirl should not bother any sensible adult any more than it would bother them to not be bright green like she-hulk.
if you want to argue that women's body image is affected by well-done doodles, then you can't disregard men being effected. saying men won't be effected by constantly shirtless, ripped-abs doodles, because the doodles were made for men is bunk. that's like saying the attractive half naked women in women's clothing ads shouldn't effect a women's body perception because those ads were designed with women as the market. yet women's ads are also taken to task. so it's obvious, in feminist agenda, that the only problem is that women are portrayed as sexy. because women shouldn't ever be potrayed as sexy because either a woman might be insecure, or because a man might like it.

Harley Quinn was designed to be a fangirl character that roots endlessly for joker and adores him. that the fans loved her bubbly sociopathism and glomped onto her brought her over to the comics. and thank goodness for it, because her character has really insreased in depth over the years. hubs has been collecting her lastest books, where in the first issue she was arguing back and forth with the artists over their style (including the sexual aspects if i remember right). it's hilarious fourth wall breaking that seems to be changing her to actually compete with deadpool. wouldn't suprise me, the fanbase has been comparing those two for a while. i love her best in the siren's arch though. where she tries so damn hard to break the hold Joker has over her mind, to the point of breaking into arkham to try and murder him, only to go right back into loving him. frankly, her back and forth and emotional tie to joker seems to be a good metaphor for addiction more than anything.
equating characters like her to being nothing more than sex objects is like looking at princess zelda (something feminists also do) and equating her to nothing more than a damsel in distress. it's agenda fuel that ignores the characters at heart and focuses on something that shouldn't even be considered a weakness.

as to that black comparison.... i've never seen an example of a female portrayed so stupidly. a better comparison would be a black cop taking the bribe, and the fandom getting uproared that they made a crooked cop black at all. and not batting an eye at all the white-villians that depict european steriotypes like evil nazi mad scientists or something.
men can be as sexual and shirtless as they want to be in comics, but for women to do it it's some terrible thing because... why? because it's target market is men? that is the only argument it ever comes back to. to which, my response will always be "harliquin novels" because it IS the same damn thing. objectification is objectification, no matter if in written or drawn form.
just because men are objectified in text instead of in images doesn't mean that women-oriented media doesn't objectify men just as badly as men's drawings depict women. and, even if men weren't reading them, the majority of covers on those are ripped, half naked men. but, most sensible adult men would see that and shrug is off as silly female fantasy material.
but the feminist rage beast won't let them selves shrug something off as male fantasy just BECAUSE it's male fantasy. and men are bad people that we should never allow to be sexual, even if it's the same thing that women want. because those women that want it are brainwashed by the patriarchy. (yes, this IS an argument i've heard) well horseshit on that.

i edited out a huuge feminist rant here, but let's just say that until they start weeding out the volume of crazy in their movement that's just as fanatical as any tea-party extremist, they should not be taken seriously.

the body image "think of the chilllldren" thing is also horseshit. kids that don't get the diffrence between real and fake shouldn't be reading every comic out there. as i said, you may as well complain about giving a kid ANY adult comic and the kid being disturbed. let's hand the kiddies Crossed, then get outraged when they get scared by the naked, cannibalistic sociopaths biting off eachother's dicks.

oops, this one ended up longer than i intended >.<

[Gravekeeper]

wow, that feminism blog is ridiculous. i'm sorry, but i do not consider how women are treated in comics to be horrible. especially by DC comics where there are incredibly strong female characters. maybe i'm in the minority. i don't care.

Are you serious? DC Comics has been stumbling from one PR disaster to another over its treatment of women since The New 52 reboot. The whole goal of the New 52 was to bolster flagging sales. Part of that goal involved sexing up a number of female characters.

No aspect of the new 52 was targeted at women. It was firmly intended to entrench the 13-34 demographic. Which DC already had prior to the reboot. So you think they would try to expand their audience. But they went in the opposite direction.

The new 52 employed only *1* woman. After fan backlash, they eventually added 3 more to the staff. 2 artists and a writer. Albeit in limited capacities.

to people over 18 losing body image issues: i never said that. i said adults can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and that they don't look like a COMIC CHARACTER should not bother any sensible adult because it's FICTION.

In a perfect world perhaps, and also its not just adults reading these. These aren't kept on the back shelf in brown paper sleeves. Anyone can and does buy them.

I honestly have no idea what to say to you if you don't understand that the portrayal of women in fictional media affects women ( and men ) negatively. There is an ocean of academic research on the topic at your fingertips through Google.

if you want to argue that women's body image is affected by well-done doodles, then you can't disregard men being effected. saying men won't be effected by constantly shirtless, ripped-abs doodles, because the doodles were made for men is bunk.

It does affect men as well. The portrayal of women affects men negatively too. In both cases the affect does not magically stop at age 18 regardless of your opinion.

But the key difference, again, is that there's a power fantasy being aimed at men along with it. This is what we're trying to explain to you but you keep reducing it to a false equivalency.

The male AND female characters exist for the male. There are very few comics and video games where the female characters exist for females. Instead they are defined by their worth or relationship to the male. Comics especially have been the longest running and most prolific offender of this to the point of having several TvTropes based around it.

Starfire being an emotionless amnesiac sex bot that will fuck anyone or thing no strings attached is not being aimed at women as an ideal. She's aimed at men as a prize. Hence her portrayal and artwork are designed as a vagina prize for men. This is damaging and insulting to both men and women that read the comic.

that's like saying the attractive half naked women in women's clothing ads shouldn't effect a women's body perception because those ads were designed with women as the market. yet women's ads are also taken to task. so it's obvious, in feminist agenda, that the only problem is that women are portrayed as sexy. because women shouldn't ever be potrayed as sexy because either a woman might be insecure, or because a man might like it.

Frankly, you lose a good deal of credibility the moment you trot out "<group> agenda" in a debate. You also, still, can't seem to figure out the difference between sexy and sexualized / objectified. Then you're finishing it off with an ignorant generalization about an entire group of people.

You don't have much credibility left in this debate to be honest.

Harley Quinn was designed to be a fangirl character that roots endlessly for joker and adores him.

Yes. The problem was the New 52 reboot dropped her original jester costume for a corset, short shorts and knee high stockings.

equating characters like her to being nothing more than sex objects is like looking at princess zelda (something feminists also do) and equating her to nothing more than a damsel in distress. it's agenda fuel that ignores the characters at heart and focuses on something that shouldn't even be considered a weakness.

Again, no one here did that. Its fine if you want to have a bug in your craw about feminists, but trying to jam them into this conversation repeatedly as the root of all evil is just making you look biased and single minded.

as to that black comparison.... i've never seen an example of a female portrayed so stupidly.

You have clearly not read many comic books then.

men can be as sexual and shirtless as they want to be in comics, but for women to do it it's some terrible thing because... why? because it's target market is men?

You sincerely don't seem to understand and I'm honestly at a loss to figure out any more ways to explain it to you. You interject things we weren't talking about, repeatedly make false equivalencies even after the problem has been explained and now just seem to be on a rant about feminists because(?)

that is the only argument it ever comes back to. to which, my response will always be "harliquin novels" because it IS the same damn thing. objectification is objectification, no matter if in written or drawn form.

There is a huge difference between a popular visual medium and a novel. Men aren't generally reading Harlequinn romance novels nor being bombarded by passages from them in movies, video games and comics.

but the feminist rage beast won't let them selves shrug something off as male fantasy just BECAUSE it's male fantasy.

Right-o. No offence, but you've lost all credibility now. Its obvious you have a glaring personal bias at work here and it seems to be preventing you from understanding the problem or looking at it objectively. All I can suggest is you spend some quality time with Google and the decades worth of research on the topics at hand until you can figure out the problem. Instead of inexplicably blaming feminists.

But I for one am not going to bother trying to explain it anymore.

[siead_lietrathua]

-i fully admit i don't pay attention to the inner workings of DC, just as i don't really pay attention to the drama surrounding movie studios or recording labels. i just read comics.

- brown paper sleeves? no. it's called parenting. knowing what your kids are reading, explaining to them the difference between reality and fantasy, teaching them about body image. arguing that comics are giving teens bad body image, is like arguing magazines do. it's up to the parents to decide what's in their kids hands.

- did i say it doesn't effect anyone? no. i said that sensible adults shouldn't compare themselves to comic characters because sensible adults know they are FAKE. comparing yourself to fakeness is, to be blunt, idiotic. an adult should be able to shake their head, go "why am i worried about a fucking doodle?" and move on with reality.

- saying that people who want to have emotionless sex can be seen as prizes totally explains part of the bar scene mentality to me now. because, last time i check, emotionless sex could also be something people do for fun.

- you can't talk about women's objectification in media without pulling feminism into it. i'm sorry but feminism is a driving force behind the issue.

- with harley, again it's all about clothing that's the problem? i've read the comics. she's still her quirky self. hell i had to go check the one he just bought because her costume is such a non-issue in my brain i didn't remember what it was. the clothing is NOT the point of the character. that's what the speech bubbles are for.

- i've read tons of comics. they tend to be more the horror genre though, where women are depicted as conniving bitches most the time, or are ACTUALLY objectified by the male subjects in a very literal sense.

- saying that " Men aren't generally reading Harlequinn romance novels" doesn't change the fact that those books could, potentially, teach women how to objectify men. which is, if i'm not mistaken, a big part of the concern for sexy women in comics, that it will skew how men treat women.

-i'm sorry if you think that i do not have credibility. i used to pay attention to this back and forth issue months ago but i lost all interest to be frank. people are complaining and fighting over to, what i find, equates to "men like boobies, and draw boobies, and that's bad because women have boobies, even if the women like the boobie drawings too. oh, and kids can't learn to like boobies because that would be bad so we have to ignore that women ever have boobies in any sort of media!".
seriously. we're adults. they're boobs. this isn't the puritanical age anymore. people need to get over it.

but i know we will keep butting heads, so i'ma bow out of this one now.

[Andara Bledin]

Yeah. How dare feminists want equality for all, damn them! *shakes fist at sky*

[siead_lietrathua]

Yeah. How dare feminists want equality for all, damn them! *shakes fist at sky*

and this one drags me back for one quick moment. see, this is not an equality issue.
this issue is of objectification, and falls into free speech, but it isn't equality.

because of free speech, men are free to objectify women in their preferred areas of media. comics, video games, whatever. ok. women can also objectify men in THEIR preferred forms of media. books, soap operas, trashy magazines, etc. everyone can equally objectify the opposite gender in whatever media they choose, they just happen to choose different ones.

now, by saying that men cannot objectify women in their preferred media, but that women doing it to men is different, tamer, or can be ignored, would make the issue unequal. because then only women would be allowed to objectify men. it would also be an issue of suppression of free speech for those men because they are no longer able to express themselves, even if it's just sexual expression.

[Andara Bledin]

Sure. Men are free to treat women like lesser people.

And everybody else is free to call them out for being filthy bigots.

By the way... re: Free Speech - You're doing it wrong. It only applies to the Government. And even then, it has limits.

[Kheldarson]

and this one drags me back for one quick moment. see, this is not an equality issue.
this issue is of objectification, and falls into free speech, but it isn't equality.

Andara hit it: free speech only applies to the government not quashing it. We're within our rights to call foul on this.

because of free speech, men are free to objectify women in their preferred areas of media. comics, video games, whatever. ok. women can also objectify men in THEIR preferred forms of media. books, soap operas, trashy magazines, etc. everyone can equally objectify the opposite gender in whatever media they choose, they just happen to choose different ones.

You keep comparing this issue to romance novels. Let me address this.

It's not the same. Perhaps similar but the extent of it is so vastly different as to be laughable.

In comics, the men are portrayed as badass foremost while women are portrayed as sexy.

In romance novels, men are portrayed as secretly sensitive bad asses, while the women are portrayed generally as fierce independent women who only need a man when the right one comes into her life.

Further, comics are focused on visualisation which emphasizes the objectification (who needs personality?) while novels focus on the conflicting personalities and emotions (even if they are cookie cutter).

It's really not the same thing.

now, by saying that men cannot objectify women in their preferred media, but that women doing it to men is different, tamer, or can be ignored, would make the issue unequal. because then only women would be allowed to objectify men. it would also be an issue of suppression of free speech for those men because they are no longer able to express themselves, even if it's just sexual expression.

So, the fact that I, a female fan of comics, find the continuing portrayal of women as sex objects before being bad ass (which, btw, is the point of the Hawkeye Initiative: it shows how utterly ridiculous the "bad ass" poses for women are) as a problem, I should be ignored since I guess I'm not the audience?

That's so short sighted on the part of a company, it's ridiculous. They are losing money by alienating part of their audience.

And I'm not even saying all of their lines should be "proper" but when a vast majority of their lines shout "we're wank material", well, maybe they should just declare themselves porn and not superhero stories that are semi-reflective on current times.

[otakuneko]

My reaction, in order:

- eh, it's just the powerpuff girls drawn older and NOT chibi, the outfits are pretty much exactly the same
- OH GOD WTF IS WRONG WITH THEIR FACES
- GO FOR THE EYES BOO, GO FOR THE EYES
- ...also the pose is kinda blah.
- meh.

[BrenDAnn]

Just gonna leave this here, because it made me think of this thread.

http://90slife.com/uploads/enhanced-...91530592-7.jpg

[Gravekeeper]

Just gonna leave this here, because it made me think of this thread.

http://90slife.com/uploads/enhanced-...91530592-7.jpg

Well, at least they have personalities in that one.

[Bloodsoul]

Oh, sweet Arceus, I read through this entire %*#@'n thread and it just made me realize that I miss buying comics. Aside from the occasional volume of Rosario+Vampire, I've missed out on a lot of issues for Sonic the Hedgehog and Mega Man, which I still have more issues of than any other individual series save for, perhaps, Terry Moore's Echo.

As for the "debate," I'm not entirely sure where I fall in. I will say that I love the sight of gorgeous women in skimpy outfits; I'm not going to hide that. On the other hand, I much prefer if they have some sort of strong personality to go with it. I want my cheesecake to be filling, damn it!

(Also, as a long-time fan of The Whoop-Ass Girls, I'm honestly afraid of looking at the image that initiated this thread.)

[Jetfire]

Set up a ComiXology account. It's great for getting back issues of series you are following and most of the main stream books are in there now (including Sonic and Mega Man).

The only reason I buy paper books now (5500 books in my collection) is to support my local comic shop. And I love Marvel for including the digital code in most of hteir books now; I simply enter the code and download them to my tablet and file the book away never to open again.

And often when I get the urge to look up an old story, I'll just pay 5$ or so for the backissues on ComiXology instead of trying to find it in my paper collection.