At Eye on Comics, Don MacPherson joins in on the criticism of DC Comics’ new “vamped-up” Catwoman and Supergirl vinyl statues, charging the publisher with contributing “to the preconception of the comics consumer as a horny, sexually frustrated basement dweller.”
But then he turns his eye to Alex Ross’ cover for Justice Society of America #7, which features Citizen Steel, and reluctantly gives DC credit for:
… sexualizing characters of both genders in its newest solicitations. Just check out the Alex Ross-painted cover image for Justice Society of America #7, slated for release in July. It depicts the newest member of the title team, Citizen Steel, a young man carrying on his family’s heroic tradition after he was altered by liquid metal excreted by a Nazi super-villain.
That strange steel elixir has transformed him into an invulnerable super-hero, a man of steel. And if one looks closely, it’s not just his fists and flesh that are hard as a rock. Perhaps his red, white and blue costume has led him to believe he’s a postal carrier, because he’s looking down at a package … one he seems more than ready to deliver.
However, at Comics Should Be Good, Brian Cronin calls the emphasis on Steel’s stars and bars “pretty darn creepy”: “My pal Jake said to me, ‘I think there are two equally creepy options – 1. Ross intentionally, on his own accord, drew a big bulge in the guy’s pants or 2. The model Ross had for Citizen Steel had a big bulge, and Ross decided to paint it in.’”
April 18th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Just imagine bringing your girlfriend home to a sexed-up Catwoman statue. That’s classy, I say… classy.
But just to be sure she doesn’t think you’re a total pig, you can have a copy of Justice Society of America #7 nearby.
It all evens out, you see?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:41 am
I think this cover is fantastic.
Hopefully it will get rabidly horny male comics fans to realize how ridiculous and objectifying depictions of many female characters are.
What’s equally ridiculous is how many artists will draw hyperdetailed muscles on a superhero character, including some that don’t exist from a sheerly reality-based perspective, and then leave the external underwear completely empty. But then maybe they’re accounting for the shrinking of the testicles from steroids.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:19 am
WANG!
April 18th, 2007 at 11:40 am
I’ve long maintained that a little bit of cheesecake and beefcake in super-hero comics is acceptable, especially when done tastefully. The Citizen Steel cover isn’t crass or exploitive, which is more than can be said for most of what DC has been doing with female characters lately on covers and on toys.
This also isn’t the first time a character painted by Alex Ross has had a pronounced bulge in their tights, which makes me think it’s simply a matter of the models he’s selecting.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Dorian wrote:
This also isn’t the first time a character painted by Alex Ross has had a pronounced bulge in their tights, which makes me think it’s simply a matter of the models he’s selecting.
You make it sound as though Ross has no choice but to include a bulge just because there’s one apparent on the model.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
So, Don, is it the very idea of a bulge that you’re objecting to, then? Because, yes, if Ross is accurately attempting to portray the model, and say what you will about his art, he does appear to be meticulous in attempting to make it as realistic as possible, than he probably should show a bit of package if the model is. But most importantly, SO WHAT? It’s not as if Ross has lovingly detailed the outline of the shaft through the clothing. All he’s done is paint the shadows and highlights in such a way as to suggest that his model wasn’t a Ken doll. Honestly, from some of these reactions, you’d think comic fans were uncomfortable with the suggestion that men have genitals.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
It’s also worth noting that while this painting may enhance to sexual attributes of the character, it’s not exactly “sexualizing” him. He is still in a powerful heroic pose, which is the emphasis of the image. This is unlike many of the sexualized images of female superheroes where their sexuality is the emphasis.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Arch 14 wrote:
It’s also worth noting that while this painting may enhance to sexual attributes of the character, it’s not exactly “sexualizing” him. He is still in a powerful heroic pose, which is the emphasis of the image.
I would argue that an unnecessary emphasis on a sexual attribute still constitutes sexualization, though not as overtly as the Supergirl statue pose, for example.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I’m curious as to how many men found Ross’ image “creepy” whilst at the same time salivating over the far-creepier Supergirl and Catwoman statues.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
How is it emphasis in the least? I had seen the picture several times and even looked at it intently for the neato lighting effects, and I had not noticed the bulge until it was made explicit here. The composition draws the eye toward the center of the picture, not towards the groin. The feature in question–genitalia!–was included, not emphasised. And, to be frank, I think that disincluding genitals would require more justification than including them, frankly, as (for the sake of practical argument) everyone has them.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
“I’m curious as to how many men found Ross’ image “creepy” whilst at the same time salivating over the far-creepier Supergirl and Catwoman statues.”
I don’t get the “creepy” thing, either.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
This is the true wave of future.
Sexualized exploitation of female characters and the female form will never go away, in any medium. It’s as simple as that.
But the media do need to do more to equalize their portrayals, so I’m all in favor of more sexualized exploitation of male figures and the male form.
“Hopefully it will get rabidly horny male comics fans to realize how ridiculous and objectifying depictions of many female characters are.”
No, it won’t. Or at least, if they do realize it, they won’t care, because they’ll still have those ridiculous and objectifying depictions of female characters to drool over, so aside from some complaining, they’ll eventually decide not to begrudge any potentially rabidly horny female comics fans the freedom to get their rocks off, too.
Equality in media portrayals is almost always inclined toward entropy; instead of building one group up, it tears the other down, to make them equal. Black people still suffer from any number of significantly racist portrayals in the media, but the media prefers to balance it out by also making fun of white trash stereotypes, like Al Bundy.
If the only way to achieve equality in media portrayals is through equal-opportunity exploitation, then so be it.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Honestly? Still not as creepily detailed as women’s secondary sexual characteristics. It’s not like you can tell if he’s circumcised or not.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Maybe they should change the character’s name to Citizen WOOD.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:40 am
I’m more disturbed by the some of the male reaction to this non-controversy than I am to the image. It’s like none of you have ever seen a penis under someone’s clothes before, and this is the first time you’ve had to face the fact that, “OMG! other men have them too? What if his is bigger than mine? I better thump on my chest and talk about how creeped out I am lest someone think I just looked at it. OOPS! I just looked at it again! Gotta go wash my eyes out (just after I sneak another peek).” Honestly, you’re revealing more about your fears (or secret desires) than anything else.
And let’s get real: it’s not a woody, he’s wearing a cup. You guys REALLY don’t know a thing about what these things look like under clothes, do you?
April 20th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
I don’t see why the fuss, don’t men have equipment there? equipment that would be visible in such tight clothes? I would be more disturbed if he had nothing.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Alex Ross has typically allowed both his male and female subjects to be anatomically correct. Good for him. I can’t tell what religion this hero is so what’s the big deal? I would ask anyone who has a problem with this…why do you buy comics?
I buy everything Ross paints because he’s not afraid to let a man be a man or a woman be a woman.
October 30th, 2008 at 4:40 am
What’s the controversy? The size of the bulge is hardly impressive. And are we suppose to pretend that men don’t have penises?
January 17th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
It seems too advanced and very broad for me to understand.