I stumbled across the quote below here:
Being a sociologist I know that smaller communities tend to be more policing of the boundaries of a collective sense of identity, and the performances thereof. Further, oppressed minorities tend to be defensive of anything perceived as 'other' inside their group as someone that could be working to undermine efforts, that doesn't really share the same oppressions.
It’s about a lesbian trying to overcome her fear and hatred of bisexuals, i.e. biphobia. The whole article is interesting, but specifically for me, it helped to explain some of the really angry responses I get from some posters at When Fangirls Attack that accuse me of being an anti-feminist despite the fact that I am a feminist. I don’t share the same oppressions. I’m perceived as “other.” My performances of feminism are different. Of course, some of the negative reaction can come from me being a smart ass too, but it was interesting to me that just as this lesbian has trouble thinking of bi women as being gay enough, so to do I get called a misogynist for not being “feminist enough,” when women who said the same thing I would be less likely to be called either a misogynist or an anti-feminist.
I’ve seen some things similar to this happening with gay comic fans. Someone stakes out a position on how gays should be treated in comics and if someone disagrees with it, the first guy gets pissed. For instance, I remember once that there was a guy who said that all the prominent gays in comics were lesbians because they appealed to straight guys. This was before Batwoman, the Question, Grace, and Thunder. It was during the time Northstar was in the X-Men, Ultimate Colossus was coming out, Apollo and Midnighter were making a big splash, I think the Rawhide Kid story was out, etc. When I pointed out that it looked as if gay men were more prominent than lesbians, he freaked out and accused me being satisfied with the very limited number of gays in comics and ranted about how wayward and stupid I was. That kind of fit what our sociologist above was talking about, but then I later mentioned in some debate about feminist issues that it is not uncommon for me to have some homosexual comics fan get angry with me like the one in the story I just relay, and someone responded by saying that it was evidence that I was anti-gay. There are a lot of things that I am, but anti-gay is not one of them. Looking back at the quote above, it looks to me that the person who called me anti-gay was “policing of the boundaries of a collective sense of identity, and the performances thereof” and concluding that I was outside the boundaries of where good homosexuals should be (even though this person couldn’t have known what boundaries I might have crossed.) Even though I was one of the 5 founders of what would become the Gay League, I’m a prominent supporter and member of Prism Comics, and I pop up all over the place supporting the inclusion of gays in comics, there are still boundaries that I might cross that would have some people decide that I’m anti-gay.
Anyway, the quote helped to explain to me some reactions that I’ve found bewildering, and I recommend the whole article as fascinating reading.
Remember when Terra had those contact lenses that Deathstroke had a video feed to? Well, it looks as if they are coming up!
Given where these scientists appear to be in their research, the superhero community, which is usually decades ahead, should have these already, at least the techie types should. For instance, I think Batman should have these already, and they kind of fit the character. Also, the Legion of Super Heroes should be laughing at this technology.
Of course, this makes characters like Dr. Mid-Nite a wee bit obsolete. I hear that there was an issue where Hooty took some Miraclo and became a super owl. Maybe writers could play up the super owl partner angle for the character to keep him relevant. *snicker*
Anon in this post said essentially that straight guys will tend to think of Wonder Woman sexually because she is dressed in what amounts lingerie. Nenena responded that she didn’t think Anon was making distinction between “fetish lingerie and Wonder Woman's iconic outfit.” While I would point out that Anon never used the word “fetish” in his post so it’s a bit of a strawman argument to claim that he is calling Wonder Woman’s outfit “fetish lingerie,” I pretty much agree with her that saying WW is wearing amounts to lingerie goes a little overboard. I might not go as far a Nenena, and I certainly wouldn’t call the Ws on her chest “armor” despite the pretext of making them look metalic, but we’re fairly close on this. Nenena goes on to write:
First, I have to question how he's using the phrase "sexualized by the male gaze" here.
Does he mean that men are unable to not think sexy, sexy thoughts whenever they see Wonder Woman's star-spangled derriere? Well, okay, whatever. But that doesn't matter. Nobody cares who you fantasize about in your own head. Believe it or not, feminists are not interested in being thought police.
Hooray! Nenena and I completely agree! (Except that I would point out that there is no hive vagina, and some feminists are in fact interested in being the thought police.) She then says:
What matters is what you say and do to women in the real world.
We couldn’t be in more agreement! You tell ‘em, sister!
How you interact with real women.
Yes! That’s the important thing! Do go on!
And how you write and draw fictional women.
Yeah! Because fictional women are ... Wait. What the fuck? Fictional women? You aren’t interested in being the thought police, but you are interested in how I draw and write fictional women who are only the expression of thoughts. Umm. I don’t get it. (And does this include how I write and draw fictional men?)
There is a difference between "attraction to" and "sexualization of". Just like there is a fundamental difference between "sexy" and "sexualized." This page shows the APA definition of "sexualization." It's a good clear definition, for discussion purposes. And please do note that "sexualization" should in no way shape or form be conflated with "sexuality."
And the APA definition (which isn’t the only one, btw) uses this criteria:
- a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;
- a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;
- a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or
- sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.
And Nenena adds in explanation:
SEXY is what a person IS. SEXUALIZATION is something that is done to a person**. Sexualization is almost always an act of sexism.
**I realize that, in the case of fictional characters, everything is by nature done to them. But, as long as it IS possible to depict a sexy female character who is not sexualized, I would say that the APA definition still works in the fictional realm.
OK, now my questions are:
1. Do you really want Anon to see more porn like you said because I think that porn is pretty much going to be sexualization as defined by the APA. I mean, I don’t know about you, but in my porn, the person’s value comes almost entirely from his sexual appeal and behavior. If I don’t find the person’s body and actions sexy, the porn has no value to me. Also, I’m pretty sure to apply a standard of physical attractiveness to the people on my porn, and it can be kind of narrow because it includes issues of age, body type, facial hair, etc. I’m not sure they are objectified because I tend to lust after people and not objects, but I will say that I’m not terribly interested in their decision making beyond the sex acts. Also, I often like for the sexuality to be inappropriately imposed on them. You know, he’s supposed to be a mechanic working on a car, but suddenly ...
2. How does one create sexual fantasy material without being sexist? If as you said all fictional characters are by their nature having things done to them, how do you create sexual fantasy stories where the whole point of the story is to be sexually titillating without creating characters and situations where their value comes from their sexual appeal? If sexualization is almost always an act of sexism, aren’t all stories of sexual fantasy acts of sexism? If not, could you give an example of what sexual fantasy isn’t an example of sexualization?
3. If you aren’t interested in being the thought police, why are you bothered by people seeing depictions or reading stories about fictional characters who are sexualized? What is the difference between me thinking about a scene with some sexy guys doing sexy things and me seeing a drawing of sexy guys doing sexy things or reading a story of sexy guys doing sexy things? Would you be bothered by the drawing if no one saw it? And if you aren’t bothered by the drawing if no one sees it, aren’t you saying that you are bothered by how the drawing affects the thoughts of the viewer?
4. If two comics come out that are identical except that in one the characters are female and the comic is created for straight guys and in the other the characters are male the comic is created for gay men and in both the characters’ value comes from the sexual attractiveness, are both sexist?
In fictional terms, nowhere does "this fictional woman is attractive" translate to an automatic excuse for lazy, clichéd, or sexist depictions of said woman.
What if I like them? I mean if straight guys want to by pictures of women in skimpy outfits so they can ogle them or masturbate over them in a way that would be rude to do to a real women, isn’t that all the “excuse” that one needs to produce them? What makes you think they are “clichéd” and not “time tested”? Are you telling other people what they should and shouldn’t find sexy?
Long-established characters should, you know, ideally be written in character. For example, Tarot is a loves-to-be-skyclad huge-breasted witch who likes to have sexy, sexy adventures that usually end in nude fairy orgies. Wonder Woman is not. If you're writing or drawing Wonder Woman to look or act like Tarot, then YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. That is bad writing (and sexualization). And that is what most feminist fans of Wonder Woman object to.
Bullshit. “Bad writing” is writing that the target audience doesn’t like, and “good writing” is what writing that the target audience likes. If the target audience is no longer 10 year olds, and it is now mainly adult, heterosexual males who want more sexual fantasy in their comics, adding sex to the character is “good writing” if they like the end result. How the target audience responds to the story is the only judge of the story’s worth. Characters and media evolve. For the most part, we don’t want the same stories that were written in the golden age or the silver age because we are a different audience. You seem to be using “in character” to mean “can’t evolve to fit the desires of the majority of readers.” Just because it hasn’t been one in the past does not mean that it is “wrong.” By this “in character” standard, Alan Moore’s use of literary characters found in his revered League of Extraordinary Gentleman is “wrong” because he uses them in a manner that is very different than how they were used in the literature in which they first appeared. Despite having been one way for over 100 years, under Moore’s genius pen, they aren’t “in character.”
Personally, I don’t see who you can say on one hand that you don’t want to be the thought police and on the other hand say that you are concerned with how someone treats a fictional character.
A quick, self-serving plug! My latest Queer Eye on Comics review is now posted at Prism Comics. And you don't have to be gay to read it ... but it couldn't hurt.
Actaully, this is just the first half of the review, but it stands up on it's own, and I think it's kind of funny. I look at the apparent problems in Gotham as evidenced by the actions in this comic.
BTW, I don't know about the rest of you, but I am so thankful for DC and Marvel making these cheap, black & white reprints in their Essential and Showcase Presents editions. Not only are they inexpensive, but they give me plenty of fodder for comedic reviews. The story The Brave and the Bold #78 is so very silly and sexist, that it's almost impossible to write about it without laughing. The Cosmic Treadmill also took it on.
Also it just occurred to me to me that the last Queer Eye on Comics review I did was of a Defenders issue written by the late, great Steve Gerber. I'm making fun of the comic because that's what we do with Queer Eye on Comics reviews, but it was a fun book, as were most of Gerber's Defenders stories. You can check out that review here.
According to Shlomo Benizri, a Member of Parliment in Israel, tolerance of homosexuals like me causes earthquakes! Makes perfect sense. San Francisco has earthquakes, plus God just hates me sooooooooo much! The noted seismologist and MP said:
The Gemara refers to earthquakes as disasters, but you are searching only for the practical solutions how to prevent and repair. But I know of another way to prevent earthquakes; the Gemara mentions a number of causes of earthquakes, one of which is homosexuality, which the Knesset legitimizes.
Finally, someone has come out against practical solutions! Maybe now the madness can end!
BTW, have you noticed how God is especially angry with the homosexuals who live on the Pacific Ring of Fire? Obviously, those queens are the worst!
In other news, a tornado destroyed Tennessee Baptist College here in my home state! But wait! That can't be right!?! How could God hate Baptists soooooo much when Baptists hate me sooooooo much!
Jeepers, God! Stop sending mixed messages! The way You keep doing this makes it very difficult to tell who You are really pissed off at. Why, it almost makes it look as if the weather isn't controlled by my sex life at all! And that would be terrible. It would mean that I don't have super powers!
Dear Lord, please reveal that Tennessee Baptist College was a hotbed of lurid Sodomy, so I can be comforted in knowing that my penis controls the weather with the help of Your irrational, violent hatred! Also, please help me use my super powers to get into the Shi' ar Imperial Guard, so I can rid them of those useless and pretentious apostrophes, which I'm sure You most also hate because they are clearly faggy. And please support Shlomo in his fight against practical solutions. Also please discuss with him his use of glasses. If minor earthquakes in Israel are signs that You are upset with homosexual activity, so too can minor blindness be, right? After all, You struck the Sodomites of Sodom blind in Genesis 19 and didn't use earthquakes to scare them. Please tell Shlomo that he should not resort to practical solutions to his blindness and should instead ... I don't, sacrifice a goat to You or something because it is clear that Shlomo is at least thinking about sucking dick or something. I mean, come on, the glasses are right there on his face! What other explanation could there be? Fault lines? Please. Those have nothing to do with eyes and are a complete myth. Oh, and thank you for Carol King.
I know there have been other gay superhero toys like Northstar, Wiccan, and Hulkling, but there is something about the blocky style of the Minimates that makes them seem even more for kids than the usual action figures. I just bring this up because not long ago, this picture with DC's rock'em sock'em lesbian couple would have been the match that lit a firestorm of controversy that would have had people fired but now, not a peep. In fact, over at Newsarama where the article about them has lots of commentary, there isn't one negative word (yet?) about the lesbian toys. The manga figures with their appeal to heterosexual guys seem to be the ones taking the heat.
Man, it's a different world than the one I grew up in. Yeeeeeeeeah! Oh, and umm, sorry, staight guys. You had a long run, but clearly, you are the monsters now.
Over here, Valerie D'Orazio claims that minority characters who are derived from earlier white, heterosexual, male characters are less likely to be interesting because the new minority characters aren’t “cast in their own image.”
I don’t see how being derivative is in any real way a hindrance to a character being interesting. Plenty of interesting comic characters have been derivative of earlier characters. As kalinara points out, virtually all DC characters are derivative of earlier characters, but I know lots of fans of Kyle, Donna, Wally, and Roy to name a few. I’m a fan of The Birds of Prey, but all of those characters were essentially derivative of early characters, many were female versions of established male characters. And it would be difficult to find something more derivative of earlier comic characters than the Ultimate universe characters, but they seem to have been embraced. Moreover, according to Stan the Man, the Hulk was derivative of the Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll. Alan Moore’s League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was derivative of several literary characters, but I’ve never heard anyone that was a quality that doomed the book to mediocrity. Fables is derived from fables and it seems to be interesting enough.
I think we could even make a case that their have been several Batmen, the early gun toting vigilante, the space-faring nice guy, the control freak asshole, etc. But would anyone say that any of those Batmen was going to be dull because he was based on an earlier Batman? Even Wonder Woman was given a hard reboot after Crisis, so is the post-Crisis Wonder Woman doomed to be uninteresting because she cast in the image of an earlier Wonder Woman? According to the law suit, Capt. Marvel was based on Superman, so was Capt. Marvel, who was remarkably popular in his day, dull because of his similarities to Superman? Or how about Alan Moore’s Supreme? The entire cast of that book was based on Superman’s and I thought it was fantastic. Apollo and Midnighter are fairly popular characters who I think are pretty interesting, and they were based on Superman and Batman. The Squadron Supreme mini series was based on the JLA, and I think that is a classic comic. And consider this. I was really looking forward to seeing the new Insect Queen in the pages of Superman, but I was really disappointed in the new Insect Queen mainly because she isn’t derivative enough of the old Insect Queen. If the new Insect Queen had the bio-ring silliness with Lana’s head on the giant hideous bug of a body, I’d have been much happier.
Was The Sandman dull because it was derived from the earlier Sandman? How about Starman? Some of the comics most hailed as creative and interesting were derived from earlier comics.
I just don’t see why it should be that a minority character with a name and maybe the powers of an earlier character would be predestined to be dull but that wouldn’t be the case for a white, heterosexual, male character.
Val also suggests that editorially mandated characters are more likely to be dull. I don’t buy the idea that characters that were editorial mandated to create diversity in a team or in a comic company’s line are inherently doomed to be dull. I’m not sure why telling an author that one of the characters in a team book should be an ethnic minority will force the writer to write a dull character compared to the author’s non-minorty characters. Anytime a writer gets a gig, he is essentially mandated to use characters of a specific race, gender, and sexuality. Every writer writing Spider-Man is editorially mandated to writer about a bunch of straight, white men and women who are the usual cast of that book Why would the writer being forced to write white characters (e.g. JJJ, Peter, May) be able to write interesting characters, but if that same writer was forced to write Robbie in the same book, he’d be more likely to write Robbie as dull because he’s a mandated black character? Characters who are mandated to be in a book aren’t necessarily going to be dull, so why would minority characters mandated to be a book be dull? This theory says something about the competency of the writers of comics that isn’t nice.
To me, it seems that what will make a character interesting is the competency of the writer, whether the character is derived from an earlier character or not, whether the character is mandated or not, whether the character is a minority character or not.
That being said there are some things that I think do work against minority characters being embraced by fans.
A. Bigotry. Unfortunately, we know that there are some people out there that just won’t buy a copy of that book that as a _____ in it. I want to believe these people are few and far between, but Phil Jimenez tells horror stories about the letters he got from people who were appalled that Wonder Woman was romantically linked to a black man. And every time a gay character is introduced to a comic, someone seems to blow a fuse.
B. Cliquishness. That’s probably not the best term for what I mean, but it will have to suffice for the idea that some readers tend to believe that books about minority characters are written pretty much exclusively for that same minority audience. This is apparently one of the things that killed the Milestone books. Perhaps even more so because the books were written by minority writers, there was an assumption by some that these books with minority lead characters for written for a minority audience. This isn’t an inherently irrational thing for people to do. There are, after all, plenty of works created for specific audiences to the exclusion of others.
C. Well-meaning, liberal scorn. I think there is a tendency among the liberal to look at minority characters in comics (particularly if they are written by non-minorities) and ask the questing “How are the screwing over this minority now?” Once the liberal reader finds that thing, the liberal has trouble liking the character. Among gay readers the most common thing is to say about gay characters is either that the character is too stereotypically gay/effeminate (e.g. Extrano) or that the character is too stereotypically straight/butch so as not to alarm straight readers (e.g. Midnighter.) Also, all lesbians are called titillation for straight boys. While I think most gay people and their supporters would agree that we didn’t want gay characters to be based on tired stereotypes, straight boy anxiety, or heterosexual lust, the types of gay characters pro-gay readers will accept as positive characters is so narrow, that it makes it almost impossible for gay characters to be embraced by those well-meaning gay and gay friendly readers. Similarly, there was a conversation about black superheroes in the Gay League were a black reader said he was tired of all black characters having at least one of a list of 7 characteristics that he named. This was about two years ago, so I’m not sure I can remember them correctly but IIRC, they were:
1. background with athletics
2. being from elsewhere (foreign country, other planet, dimension. time)
3. having a costume, look, or power that hid the character’s ethnicity
4. criminality in background
5. getting powers from a device, by accident, or from a white guy, not through one’s own efforts
6. based on earlier white character
7. angry
At first that seemed like a fairly telling list because all the black characters seemed to have at least one of those characteristics, but then I noticed that I couldn’t think of any white characters who didn’t have at least one of those characteristics. I challenged the Gay League to come up with a white a character who didn’t have at least one of these characteristics, and no one could come up with anyone. Because this guy was applying this list of characteristics to black characters before he could like them, he couldn’t find any to like, but it wasn’t until our discussion that he realized that the same list dismissed all comic characters. This isn’t to say that I don’t understand why someone wouldn’t want those characteristics in a black character. I know I would be taking them into consideration if I created a black character. However ...
I do think that the characters created by well-meaning liberals might tend to be more boring if those writers try to remove anything that might be considered offensive from the character. For instance, there were people who were really bugged that Patriot was using mutant growth hormone to get his powers. I understand why people wouldn’t want the black character to be the one using drugs; however, I have to admit that that origin of his powers and the conflicts it created for his ethics (i.e. do the ends justify the means?) and his teammates (i.e. is our teammate a hero, a villain, an addict, or some combination of the three?) was inherently more interesting than what was assumed to be his origin (i.e. he inherited his powers.) In the area of gay characters, I think it’s kind of sad that so many gay readers are affronted by characters portraying what could be called “gay cultural influences” but are usually called “stereotypes.” There is this strange irony that many of us want more minority characters in comics are frequently the first to dismiss those minority characters as “tokens” and to find flaws in them so we don’t have to like them and can continue to complain about the injustices were are subjected to.
When I look at Val’s complaints about the minority characters at DC, I can’t help but to wonder if part of the reason she doesn’t tend to find them interesting is that she has that well-meaning liberal scorn toward what she sees as bias against those characters. She seems to have an inclination toward disliking minority characters based non-minority characters that I’m not convinced extends to non-minority characters based on non-minority characters.
Then again, she might just think they are dull because she thinks they’re dull. The fact of the matter is that only a small percentage of characters become our favorites. It’s unlikely that new characters, minority or otherwise, will become favorites of ours. Val tends to like the Marvel blacks better than she likes the DC blacks. Is that because the DC blacks are mainly derived from earlier white characters? Maybe. Or it could be that there is a stylistic difference between Marvel and DC characters that tends to make Marvel characters more interesting to her in general. I don’t know. It could be that looking for why this or that minority character isn’t interesting to us and blaming writers for that is unfair because we don’t tend to dish out that same kind of blame for non-minority characters. I’m not much of a fan of Spider-Man, but I know others are. I don’t blame the Spidey writers for doing something wrong or unethical. I certainly wouldn’t blame my Spider-Man apathy on some racism, sexism, or homophobia/heterophobia of the authors, but there is a tendency to blame writers of some ethical failing if we aren’t interested in minority characters. It could be that the writers aren’t doing anything wrong so much as the odds of us really getting into a new character are small to start with.
Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the link!
My husband bought this for me after he saw how disappointed I was when someone else got it at a dirty Santa party ... and I got a jar of cashews. Turns out the cashews were fantastic. I don't know what they did to them, but I have never had better tasting nuts in my mouth. (Insert joke here.)
Still, screw the cashews! Colbert's book was hysterical. I could not recommend it more highly. I laughed out loud more times than I could count (and I'm a pretty good counter) in public where it was a wee bit embarassing. But I would do it all again!
Plus there were comic book references sprinkled here and there.
To quote Colbert, "For Christ sake, someone put a bra on Jene Harlow." Truer words were never spoken. And in context, very funny.
Incidentally, Cheung and Cheung's rabid fans: I do not hate sex. I do not hate men or women, except in specific cases. I am neither Christian nor prudish and I don't believe that keeping the lights on is the most exciting thing one can do in the bedroom. I'm just very clear on where an empowered female character who just happens to enjoy sex becomes a juvenile vehicle for fanservice and wanking.
Anon took a shot at this article from Your Webcomic Is Bad and You Should Feel Bad. I thought I’d take a swing at it too.
I love when the term "juvenile" is used because it pops up so frequently after someone says they aren't against sex. They’re just against juvenile sex ... whatever that is. They're for mature sex, which I assume is punctuated with pithy bon mots about Lipitor and discussions of 401(k) plans, but certainly no wanking. Yuck. Comics are for people who have outgrown masturbation like those silver-haired studs in the Cialis ads. Man, you wouldn't catch one of those guys jerking off. They have wanton wives who live active, bike-riding lifestyles. How can Power Girl compete with that!?!
What I've found is that "juvenile sexual fantasy" is frequently code for "male sexual fantasy." I'm going to generalize here, and I know I'm writing in generalizations that don't fit all people, so please don't respond with "But I'm a guy and I don't ...." Or "That's a stereotype of women, and not all women ...." I know. You are correct.
However, when we look at the sexual fantasy material that is bought by men and contrast it with the sexual fantasy material that is bought by women, we find that men's tends to be a lot more visual and more focused on the sex act. Women's fantasy material tends to focus more on the emotional connection (the romance) made between the characters and their intention to stay together beyond the sex act. Male sexual fantasies seem more connected to masturbation which men engage more frequently than women.
And male sexual fantasy material stays pretty much the same no matter what the age of the guy is. It's not as if there is a big difference between what junior and gramps thinks is sexy. Older guys may refine their tastes, but they don't really alter them from the kind of thing they'd read in Penthouse Forum to the kind of thing found in a romance novel. It's pretty much going to be Penthouse Forum -- or something with even less words and more pictures -- from cradle to grave.
So what makes some sex fantasy juvenile? If you show me a guy who buys comics with sexual images of women, all I'll be able to know about him is that he buys comics with sexual images of women. I certainly won't know if he is juvenile or not. To me, people who are juvenile are people who lack the capacity to (among other things) plan ahead, think abstractly, act independently, delay gratification, empathize, act ethically to their own detriment, and (ironically) respond sexually. I can't see how I could know anything about any of those attributes about a guy based on his buying a comic with sexual images. (Actually, I suppose there is an increased probability that he can respond sexually, but that makes him more likely to be mature rather than immature.)
If wanting to look at sexualized images is evidence of a lack of maturity, we should be able to predict an increase in the probability of other juvenile behaviors in the person who wants to look at the drawing. As an illustration, let's say there was a guy who was left alone in a room with a bowl of jellybeans that he is told he should not eat or he will get in trouble, but he does eat them and then cries about how he wished he'd never eaten the jellybeans and came of with a host of excuses to explain his behavior. I would say that person was juvenile, but for me to be correct, it should also be true that I could predict an increased probability of behaviors unrelated to eating forbidden jellybeans. And I could predict that if I had a group of people who did the jellybean thing above they would be more likely to blame things on their imaginary friends, be less likely to plan for future charity drives, have more trouble understanding Objectivism, etc. There is empirical data to show that those behaviors are linked by degree of maturity. However, if I found out that someone liked looking at a drawings of women with overblown sexual attributes, I could guess that he and those like him probably liked looking at other drawings of women with overblown sexual attributes, but I couldn't tell if they were more likely to blame things on their imaginary friends, be less likely to plan for future charity drives, have more trouble understanding Objectivism, etc. In short, I couldn't tell if he was more or less mature than the guy who didn't like looking at drawings of women with overblown sexual attributes.
However, when people claim that this or that sexual fantasy material is juvenile, they appear to be saying that they can tell something about the behaviors of those guys that has nothing directly to do with them looking at the pictures. They think that they can tell if the guys can think abstractly or delay gratification or something else related to maturity. I’ve never seen any evidence of such a connection to sexual fantasy material. It may exist, and if so, I’ll bet it’s fascinating reading, but I’ve never seen it. I'll owe whoever can direct me to something like that a big favor!
Having said that, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that there are people who call romances childish, but seems to be a less common criticism and certainly not a criticism that is expressed with the same kind of vehemence that we see in the linked ... ahem ... review. Although Lilith Ester (great name, btw) assures that she doesn’t hate sex and isn’t a prude, she has this to say about the creator of this web comic, who seems to be indulging in harmless male sexual fantasy:
The word for people like this is "creep". If you're me, that word's turned into a phrase: "motherfucking creepy pervert who should be taken behind the barn and shot in the balls".
...Cheung, you're a creepy motherfucker (as evidenced by the fact you used to draw guro for a living) and your comic's a piece of shit that's only notable due to you letting your creepiness spill over into it. I recommend that you either undergo a complete personality and morality transplant or take down your shitty site and go jump into a vat of nitric acid.
But remember, she’s not a prude. You can tell because she said so.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating Cheung’s work. I'm not a fan of it, rabid or otherwise. I think it’s dull, but then I’m not the target audience. And I understand that some people are justifiably wary of sexual material that contains images of young adults/teens. But I am also willing to acknowledge that fantasizing about sexy young people is neither a crime nor evidence of mental illness, perversion, or turpitude. The vast majority of straight guys thought Brittany was sexy while she was still underage, and those guys didn't advocate for lowering the age of consent nor were they suffering from brain damage or neuroses. Seriously, does anyone believe that all the adult guys who thought Brittany's naughty schoolgirl videos were sexy were perverts? Because that's a lot of guys. In fact, sexual researchers have found that the look she had in those videos, the combination of youth and sexual maturity that is very much like what we see in the Cheung's work, was the most universally sexy look in the world to straight guys. It is not pedophilia to lust after young people who have gone through puberty. It is practically a genetic imperative.
Ms. Ester would like us to believe that she's not a prude, but she is expressing extreme, violent revulsion to what is literally the most common type of sexual fantasy imagery in the world. And let me remind you, that it is only imagery, not acts. In light of that, calling her "prudish" might be too mild a term. "Erotophobic" might actually be more fitting.
The vast majority of people throughout history have had sex in the early teens even if that wouldn’t be the best choice to make in our modern society. I'm all for having an age of consent, and I'm happy with where it is for the reasons that it is where it is, but we don't need to demonize sexual attraction to teens in order to uphold the laws for the reasons we uphold them. I’m not attracted to young guys, but there is nothing immoral or illegal about thinking about underage people. If thinking about things was immoral or illegal, I’d be in serious trouble for my murder fantasies. (Get the hell out of the passing lane if you aren’t passing, you morons!!!)
Personally, I suspect a kneejerk, reactionary fit in response to sexual imagery is stronger evidence of a lack of maturity than sexual imagery is.