Treating an Object as an Object Is Not Objectification. It's Sanity.

Calvin thought, drew, or wrote about boobies

This is a belated response to Nenena’s comment to my post here.

I am interested in when and where you draw fictional women. Scott, I think we've agreed in the past that it is possible for a piece of fiction to be misogynist (i.e. Gor), homophobic (i.e. Orson Scott Card), or just plain sexist (i.e. Cerebus). Depictions of fictional women do matter.

I do agree that fiction and drawing can be something that is kind of dangerous and some expressions of thought should be fought with countering expressions of thought that might include ridiculing or shaming the person expressing the dangerous thought ... with some caveats. So when Card says allowing gays to be out will destroy civilization because people will think they can flaunt the law, we can respond by saying that if there is no law against being gay then they aren’t flaunting the law. And the reason we take the time to counter the thought is that it has real world implications. However, in the case of objectifying a comic book character, I’ve yet to see anything that says the women are worse off because men look at drawings of breasts. I agree that treating women as objects is wrong and something we should struggle against, but I don’t agree that treating images in comics as objects because they are objects is wrong is something we should be struggling against. Drawings are not people. They are objects. You can’t objectify an object anymore than you can liquefy a liquid or solidify a solid.

To boil it down, I think there is a fundamental difference between saying “I like looking at naked women” and “Women are supposed to be objects for the enjoyment of men.” And expression of what you enjoy or find sexual appealing is not the same as an endorsement of behavior that belittles others.

My position is that I don't care if you like sexualized imagery, but I do not think that it is ALWAYS appropriate in EVERY instance. ... As a general rule, porn is different and operates by different rules. Porn is anything-goes.

I’m pretty much in agreement here, but on the flip side, there seems to be this notion that there are constrictive, anti-sex rules for what belongs in superhero comics and what doesn’t that are hitting on things that aren’t anywhere close to being porn. I would suggest that the rules are imaginary and only the vestiges of Wertham-esque fears of what sexual imagery does to people, our internalized prudishness handed to us by a well-meaning stunned by even a glimpse of a nipple society, and comic book tradition that goes back to the silver age but not back to the golden age when there were plenty of sexy comics.

Sex does belong in porn, but that doesn’t mean that’s the only place it belongs. When I read Anita Blake novels, I could say, “Hey, this is a horror/adventure book! It shouldn’t have this sex and romance in it!” Or I could say, “Oh, the book combines elements of horror/adventure and those sexy romance books.” I say the latter. Why then should I complain that comic books, which now have a more adult audience, are including more sexual elements? Why is male sexual fantasy supposed to be relegated to porn, but female sexual fantasy pops up in all sorts of books that are loosely connected to the romance genre but are just as much horror, science fiction, adventure, detective, or some other genre? Why is it OK to combine straight female sexual fantasy with an adventure story but it’s bad to include straight male sexual fantasy with an adventure story? Where is there a rule that says it is OK to have violent fantasies, power fantasies, romantic fantasies, and revenge fantasies in comics but sexual fantasies are verboten? They have popular comics with sexual fantasy material in Mexico, Japan, France, etc., so why can’t they be here in the US? We used to have them here. Comics were originally published by the same folks who did the erotica of the day.

I am NOT the "thought police" because I do not advocate censorship.

Let’s start by looking at the thought part. When people say “thought police,” they don’t mean that you are actually policing thought, but the expression of it in art & words. No one is suggesting that telepaths are reading our thoughts and judging them. So when we refer to the thought police, we are referring to people who are “policing” expressions of thought. Next, they don’t mean that one is for creating actual laws against the expression of thought but that one shames those who express unpopular thoughts. Like when we call someone a member of “the fashion police,” we aren’t suggesting that those people are actually going to arrest anyone for wearing one of those god-awful tube tops, only that they might say that the tube top is god-awful to the unfortunate wearer of the garment. Even if you aren’t talking about legal censorship, you are promoting social censorship. Censorship is a kind of suppression that does not need to be in the form of law and is not necessarily wrong.

You wrote “Nobody cares who you fantasize about in your own head.” I would say that when we talk about someone acting as the thought police, that person does care about what is going on in your head and is also concerned with expressions of it that don’t include actions beyond the verbal or pictorial expression. So for instance, the only connection between erotic imagery and the actions of treating women badly is that it appears that an increase in erotic imagery decreases the instances of men treating women badly. We don’t see a connection between looking at pictures of breasts and an increase in rape, physical abuse, or sexism generally. People have looked and looked for that connection, and it’s just not there. However, there has been a connection between telling men that women want to be raped or women will love you if you rape them “well” enough (and the rape will transform into “love making”) and other rape myths. The thought police phrase their arguments against T&A drawings as ethical arguments, not aesthetic arguments. The thought police seem to be saying that the T&A is somehow unethical but they don’t point to any unethical behavior beyond the drawings themselves. If they could point the drawings and then show that the drawings created some unethical behavior like rape or abuse, they wouldn’t be thought police, they’d be rape police or abuse police. But when the ethical criticism ends with the drawing itself (e.g. “this is sexual objectification”), that is what people mean by “thought police.”

How does one create sexual fantasy material without being sexist?

Well, that depends on the context. Are you talking about "sexual fantasy" in terms of mainstream superhero comics (which I would argue ought to be about heroes first and sex second), or "sexual fantasy" in terms of porn (in which obviously the sex takes top priority)? You see, the rules are different. Context is important. I did not make these distinctions in my post, because Anon did not make them in the post that I was responding to.

Again, we’re pretty much in agreement, but even if the sexual elements are secondary, it seems that there are plenty of feminists who are saying that a little T&A in the comic makes it sexist. For instance, Karen Healey writes here:

1)     I think it is safe, at this stage, to say that Ed Benes really likes drawing women’s butts. This is more than I am personally comfortable knowing about a complete stranger, but outside of my personal preferences and more to the point, it is utterly inappropriate to regularly position or twist every female character so that when she’s, for instance, supposed to be staring down an enemy, she’s actually presenting her impressive and lovingly detailed ass to the reader. Unless the story somehow calls for it, the focus of almost any given scene ought not be a female behind.

She goes on to say:

This page is sexist

Now, it is inappropriate for me to ask you to defend Karen’s words, so if you want to tell me to blow it out my ass, feel free. But when I read what you write, it seems like you are saying something very similar to what Karen is saying above. And Karen’s complaints are based on being able to see Wonder Woman’s tushie on one page. It is lovingly detailed, but in the context of the whole book (and even this page), Wonder Woman does NOT get her value exclusively from her looks or sexual behavior, nor does the book (or even this page) put sexuality at the forefront of its agenda. An aspect of sexuality is there because Benes has given her a sweet ass and let us see it, but is this incorporation of even that tiny bit of sexuality to the character so much that we can call this “sexist” instead of “fantasy material geared primarily toward heterosexual, male adults that includes some imagery”? Looking at the APA definition, we could make a case for Diana being held to narrow definition of beauty, being objectified (in the sense that she is already an object and, therefore, treated as one), and having sexuality thrust upon her inappropriately in that her thong-like shorts hardly seems like crime fighting gear. Wonder Woman does fit a very narrow definition of beauty and doesn’t veer from it. We are looking at her ass for sexual enjoyment ... Well, someone is. And it is odd that she fights super villains in a skimpy outfit that has her butt cheeks hanging out. But given that we know that over 90% of comic readers are male and the vast majority of them are heterosexual adults, why would we conclude that it is sexist for there to be sexual fantasy elements for them in their fantasy materials?

To be inappropriate we have to either decide that the image is wrong in all cases or that it is wrong for the intended audience (e.g. your hardcore Tinkerbelle example.) For instance, we could say that an image that promoted lynching Blacks was wrong in all cases because the promotion of lynching is unethical even if the audience (e.g. Klansmen) might like the message. (BTW, no one will call you the thought police if you come out against the promotion of lynching because there is evidence that promoting lynching clauses lynching.) However, you’ve already said that sexual imagery, even those as overt as those found in porn, can be fine, and imagery in mainstream comics is hardly as overt as porn. So we’re left looking at the intended audience. The intended audience for mainstream comics is pretty obviously adult straight guys, who are in fact their biggest audience. If T&A is fair game in Maxim, why wouldn’t it be fair in comics, which cater to essentially the same demographic?

In general, I am not bothered by people seeing depictions of sexualized women. I AM bothered by depictions of sexualized women in comics that I turn to for heroic empowerment fantasies. I am bothered when the fantasy is ruined for me. I am bothered when the fantasy is ruined for the young girls that I teach and work with, girls who talk about dropping this comic or that comic because the female characters started acting like blow-up sex dolls instead of heroes.

I sympathize with you. I’ve dropped comics because they ceased to be relevant to me. There are comics that I never picked up because they looked as if they were just for straight boys. But I can’t say that it is sexist for them to go for the straight boy dollars instead of the gay boy dollars. Nor can I say that it is “inappropriate” to create a comic for one audience instead of another. And I can’t say that there isn’t stuff out there specifically targeted toward my demographic as there is for women and girls. In fact, there are far, far more novels, films, songs, comics, television shows and other media out there for straight girls than there is for middle-aged gay men like me.

I don’t think that I or many people have said there is something wrong with saying “I’m bothered by this comic because of all the T&A in it.” Or “I don’t want to buy or even read this comic because it is just a wankfest for straight guys.” I know that I’ve said several times that I don’t want to buy those overt T&A comics. The more overt the T&A is the less likely I am to buy the comic. Never bought Witchblade, Fathom, Lady Death, etc. No one will call you the thought police for saying that you don’t like T&A. They will only say it if you seem to be shaming someone for wanting to produce it or wanting to buy it.

This may sound like entitlement to you. To which I say: Who is more entitled here? The guys who demand wank material in their comics (especially when they could get that for free on the internet), at the cost of the girls who can longer turn to those comics for empowerment fantasies? Or the girls who just want to read something that doesn't slap them in the face with overt sexism?

I think you are confusing "overt sexuality" with "overt sexism." I’m against entitlement when it’s “I’m a straight guy; therefore, comics are supposed to be for me.” When I see people writing that, it makes me nuts. However, I’m not opposed to entitlement when it is the artist saying “I want to draw T&A and I am entitled to draw whatever I want.” Nor am I bothered when a reader says, “It’s my money and I’m entitled to buy whatever comic I want, and if it has T&A in it, that’s my business.” The people who produce the comic and the people who pay for it are “more entitled” than those who don’t. And if the artist wants to take his pay from straight guys, and the straight guys want to pay him, they are entitled to do so even if that means they aren’t making comics for you or me. Their decisions are economic and atheistic, not unethical. If I say they are supposed to producing the comics I like instead of the comics I don’t, that is the kind of fan entitlement that I don’t understand or support. I’m perfectly willing to let people produce the comics they want to produce and buy the comics they like. If there isn’t a comic you like out there, I suspect that either people like you are too small a group to support the comic or that it will be produced because tends in comic buying made by the people like you will support the creation of the kind of comic you like.

Stereotypes are bad. Trust me. Speaking as someone who has been getting the shit-end of the gender stereotype stick for most of her life, and who has seen most of her friends and family getting the shit-end of the gender stereotype stick for most of her life, I think I can say with confidence that there is very little about stereotypes that are "time-tested."

When I said “time tested,” I was saying that some visuals have been more successful in engendering pleasurable titillation in straight guys than others. Is that the stereotyping that has been causing you grief?

I'm telling people that not everything that they find sexy is neccessarily appropriate in every work of fiction always and forever. Context matters. To use an extreme example, I think we'd agree that something like bondage porn would be inappropriate in a Tinkerbell storybook that Disney markets to children. Okay? I realize that this is an extreme example, but I'm trying to illustrate the basic logic here. When feminists say, "This is not appropriate here," it doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to find it sexy. It just means that it's inappropriate in the given context.

I have never, ever seen anyone ever make the argument that sexy is necessarily appropriate in every work of fiction always and forever. I mean NEVER. We all know that some things don’t belong in some works. But the argument that some feminist (and let me say again that I am a feminist) seem to be making seems to begin with the premise that comics are supposed to be for both a male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. “Mainstream” does not mean “for everyone.” For instance, if I said, “GQ is a mainstream men’s magazine, but Swank isn’t,” I doubt many people would argue with me. GQ is a mainstream magazine, but it is also a men’s magazine. Its primary audience is adult males, more specifically, straight adult males. But it’s still mainstream. Like it or not, the primary audience for comics is essentially also straight adult males. Just as I think it is OK to target straight adult males with GQ, so too do I think it is OK to target that same audience with the JLA. And it is perfectly all right for a magazine to target a completely different audience. Cosmo can go for straight adult women, Highlights for children, and The Advocate for homosexual adults. I'd say The Advocate was a mainstream magazine for homosexuals, but it is for homosexuals.

We can be disappointed that a comic book doesn’t have us as it’s audience, but saying that the comic producer is sexist for producing a comic for men is not correct anymore than saying a comic producer who makes a comic aimed at women is sexist.