Comic Book Resources

They should rename the book "Secret Sexual Organs".

Do alien persons from Apokolips even have the standard naughty bits??
The world must know!

Wow. Thanks for opening our eyes, man.

By the way, do you have kids?

Two daughters, Mark. Why do you ask?

Wow. Two whole comments before you get a dickhole response. What's up with people this week? Puritanical Americans don't want (and don't comprehend) gay-bashing satire, they want you to love Civil War, and now they're questioning your authority as a breeder. Because that's what's great about America.

Also, is her hair that long in the comics when she's running round doing "regular" stuff? Because if not, her hair must look pretty freaky with that one long tendril thing flapping about the place covering up people's T&A.

I have a kid, and I would be flabergasted to see that little Johnny goes in to life believing chicks have no nipples. With all the violenace in the world, I say, "Bring on the nips!" Showing actual beheadings on television is much more damaging than seeing a cartoon superheroine walking out of the shower. I can explain to my four year-old why women have nipples and teach him how to repsect that. What I CAN'T explain is why people fly planes in to buildings and invade other countries for no apparent reason . . .

Excuse the typos . . .

It's even funnier censoring comics for 'kids' given the demographics that read them. As a percentage of sales, I get the feeling that few people under the age of 16 or 18 are reading these.

Don't forget the cannibalism!

Also, your "Apokoliptians have no genitals" theory doesn't work, because later, she has sex with Deadshot.

Here's Walker on the topic:

Hey! I tried to give her nipples, but you can blame DC for the way things turned out! As for the lack of pubic hair, well, I'll take 50% of the blame there...
Brad

I actually think that DC and Marvel not letting its heroes and villains be officially seen starkers is what leads us to a lot of the really stupid cheesecake/pornface/boobs-don't-work-that-way action in these comics. The writers and artists still have to walk a line, so they either nudge at it with little Benny Hill-style "oops, she's naked but not quite!" moments or they exaggerate what you can see to insane proportions (hence the Michael Turner Power Girl cover).

Not that there wouldn't be fanservice if nudity were allowed, but somehow I think it would be less obtrusive. (Note how with LIBERTY MEADOWS, Frank Cho draws and sanctions all kinds of pieces with Brandy in her altogether, but in the comic strip itself her sexiness is not a huge deal.)

To clarify, I don't think all the cheesecake moments are bad (and this one made for a good gag), it's just that when they are, I go into "this is what comes of American comics being so repressed" mode. Sorry.

Actually I object to the misuse of the the word "puritanical"

What you're referring to is uptight people, not puritans.
Read some puritan books sometimes--they do wirte about & deal with sex--and not to say it's bad.

Actually I object to the misuse of the the word “puritanical”

What you’re referring to is uptight people, not puritans.
Read some puritan books sometimes–they do wirte about & deal with sex–and not to say it’s bad.

Can you reccomend some books? Because as far as I knew, the puritans had a very fearful and strict mindset about sex.

Damn. I apologize to everyone for my abhorrent butchering of the word "recommend".

Beeeeeeoooooobbbbsss!!!!!

Heh, "Argle Bargle". That's become my phrase of the day.

I bring nothing to the table.

"Puritanical" means "marked by stern morality," so I'm sticking with it! It doesn't really have to have anything to do with the Puritans much anymore, especially because they're not really around much.

I wasn't going to get into how Apokoliptians have sex, Michael. Maybe she doesn't need genitals ...

Yeah the attitude is ridiculous but you can't trust any company not to go psycho-bananas the moment they are allowed to show actual nudity. If somehow the market was different and allowed it you'd have everyone emulating Chuck Austen and Wonder Woman would be getting slapped in the face by Superman's wang of tomorrow.

Also, I'd argue cartoon violence and cartoon sex are two very different things. Should Robotman get his head torn off a reader knows it can be repaired. But if Robotman was to undergo some sort of sexual attack (or at least the act of it)...

"and Wonder Woman would be getting slapped in the face by Superman’s wang of tomorrow."

Well it'd make a change from Batman.

Sorry Greg, but I don't really see what the point of this piece is except a cliched critique of America. Most importantly, it seems to go against a lot of what this blog usually complains about. People complain about Didio and Johns excessive use of gore and violence and how kids can't read comics anymore. Then there are complaints about about the objectification of women I see from time to time on this blog. Now the people here are complaining that the sex isn't ramped up to as extreme a level as the violence? If comics have a problem with being too mature for young readers now a days, shouldn't we be hoping that the companies get as squeamish about violence as they currently are about sex rather than hoping that they end up making the sex as extreme as the violence currently is (sorry about the awkward sentence, but I'm too lazy about revising it).

Also, it really is a tired conversational cliche when people complain about how extremely puritanical America is about sex just because we aren't at the same level as Europe. In India and Hong Kong, two of the biggest international movie markets, it's still scandalous to have a liplock on film among married couples!! Also, Europeans supposedly are more squeamish about violence on film than we are, so I'm sure it all evens out in the end.

P.S. I don't really get why fully nude cheesecake and sex is good in comics just because it's so common in classical art. Homosexual pedophilia is rampant in classical literature and art too, but I don't think anyone's clamoring to put it in a Batman and Robin story.

Oh, T., usually I so enjoy reading what you have to say, even though I disagree with you. But this is a bit silly.

You're making this about sex. It's not. It's about the naked form. Knockout is in no sexual situation at all. She is later in the mini-series, and it's sort of suitably covered up (not much, but more than it is here). You say I'm complaining that the sex isn't ramped up to the level of the violence. That's not what I'm saying at all. I mentioned that the sex is a cause for concern, and if I were a parent (hey! and I am!), I would probably not want my kid reading this. But NOT because of a naked woman simply standing there. That's ridiculous. You're making a HUGE leap from a naked female to "homosexual pedophilia." I don't want sex in a Batman comic, but I don't want a lot of the violence either. But there's a big difference between nudity and sex. If a statue of David isn't going to warp a kid's mind, a drawing a Knockout in all her glory isn't going to either. If there was a classical statue of David doing Jonathan, maybe you'd have a point.

And you know that I have never complained about the maturity level of comics, nor do I really care about comics being aimed more at kids. I have no nostalgic longing for the days of my youth when I could read comics without seeing heads explode or barely-covered breasts, because I didn't read comics when I was a kid. I think DC and Marvel should make a better effort at creating children's comics, but I don't think that means they should try to market most superheroes to them, because superheroes, to a large extent, have moved on. We can argue whether that's good or not, but they have. I don't really care if comics are aimed at children. I'm not a child. And my kids will find things to entertain them if they can't read comics, I'm sure.

It really comes down to an attitude toward nudity, not sex, and I can't even imagine you would say Americans aren't puritanical about nudity. Go see a PG-13 movie and see how many people die in pretty graphic ways. But woe betide the filmmaker who puts a breast in a movie, even if it's in a completely non-sexual way. That sucker will get an R without the MPAA even thinking about it. That's just the sad truth. You may LIKE the fact that we're puritanical about nudity (and that's fine if you are), but we still are. And let's not compare us to India and Hong Kong, where religion (in the first case) and a totalitarian government (in the second case) keep "morals" strictly enforced. For a free, pretty secular society, we're amazingly squeamish about nudity.

Are Americans prudish about nudity and sex compared to Europeans? Oh yeah, no question. But compared to a vast majority of the world, we're considered racy and sex-obsessed as hell! Look at most world cinema and pop culture and you'll see what I mean.

I was wrong about saying you complain about tasteless violence in comics, sorry. I must have misremembered and conflated the various opinions of other reviewers with your expressed opinions.

Oh, and I'm not saying that nudity is equivalent to homosexual pedophilia, just that pointing out that something is acceptable in classical art and literature isn't enough to convince people it should be in mainstrea

Oops, hit "reply" too soon.

I’m not saying that nudity is equivalent to homosexual pedophilia, just that pointing out that something is acceptable in classical art and literature isn’t enough to convince people it should be in mainstream entertainment. People have a double standard because the museum can pull the old "educational value" card. No one can really say that about Secret Six. It's similar to why the Bible can have tons of adultery, sexual situations, unmarried sex and violence yet be pushed on young kids everywhere. Because it has "moral value" of religion.

"“Puritanical” means “marked by stern morality,” so I’m sticking with it! It doesn’t really have to have anything to do with the Puritans much anymore, especially because they’re not really around much."

I think a lot of the prudery we see nowadays comes from the Victorian era.

Greg, I'm curious - did this actually damage your enjoyment of the book? Anyways, and maybe this is just me being a puritanical American, but that panel you show doesn't look like innocent, non-sexual nudity to me. I haven't read the book, so I don't have the context, but, at least taken by itself it looks like a fairly straightforward cheesecake shot. Your description of the scene made it sound, at least to me, as if the nudity had no point other than having a hot chick walk around naked. Hardly a "completely non-sexual scene".

DC and Marvel will put nudity in their books if they think their market demands it - I seriously doubt that they are trying to protect anybody from anything. They are just meeting the market.

In the meantime, if you want to see see nude superheroes, there are comics available - Powers comes to mind, and there are other books that do that, as well. I may as well extend my puritanical credentials and admit that the nudity in Powers detracts from the book for me - I love the series, but the nudity always feels gratuitous and fairly pointless to me.

"I just know that if Knockout had been portrayed like an actual woman (and I commend Walker for drawing her with realistic proportions, because she’s a freakin’ warrior, after all!), people would have gone nuts, ignoring the bloody carnage on almost every other page. What an uptight country I live in!"

I don't believe that to be true. I think that you are making assumptions. There have been many PG movies and PG-13 movies with nudity in it and the country did not act in an uproar. I remember watching the movie "Sheena" starring Tanya Roberts which featured nudity for comedic effect similar to the way Gail Simone uses it here. And nobody burned down the theaters. And millions more people saw the movie Sheena than read a comic like Secret Six.

I agree that nipples and genitals are fine. I disagree with your attitude that "people would have gone nuts." I think the vast majority of the world would have been okay with it. Would some people object? Probably a couple. But most people would not. I truly believe that.

(And really, if DC stuck a "Mature Content" label on it, then readers would barely bat an eyelash. Have you read Vertigo books? Or even something like Powers by Bendis and Oeming? Nipples show up. NO BIG DEAL. Trust me -- the comic reading public is pretty understanding.)

We live in a country where a show like South Park pokes fun in a far more outrageous manner than Secret Six on a weekly basis. I think you do not give enough credit to how tolerant, understanding, and forgiving the American public is. The vast majority of the time, when there is a huge public outcry, it is because the leader of an organization has deliberately chosen an issue to raise political visibility. But most of this stuff flies under radar with barely a peep.

You make the assumption that people would have gone nuts and that this is a puritanical country because of this panel. I look at my comic books stores shelves and see Red Sonja, Conan, Lady Death, Powers, and an Alan Moore book like "Lost Girls" and think that you are getting worked up over nothing. Seriously, you want to see books with genitals and nipples? They're all over the place. And people are fine with it. They really are.

You are trying to pick a fight with an enemy you have created in your own mind. Was the country founded by Puritans? Yes, yes it was. Are they exercising unreasonable standards on comic book content today? No, no they are not.

I believe you just wanted to go on a rant and did not bother to objectively weigh the evidence. The very crux of your argument -- that people would go nuts over nudity in a comic book panel -- strikes a false note.

Okay, Greg, let me ask you a question -- can you name any comic books that have caused a major uproar with the American public because they contained nudity? Do any examples come to mind? Because I can't think of anything.

Conversely, can you think of any comic books that did not stir any negative reaction at all despite showing the naked human form? Because I can come up with plenty. So can you, I imagine.

In principle, I am in agreement with your stance towards complete artistic freedom and the depiction of the human form. What I disagree with is the shoddy construction of your argument, the distinct paucity of evidence on your side, and the inappropriately condescending tone you take with the people of this country.

I think that if you have any sort of real issue here, it should be with the restrictive standards of DC Editorial (who, I must remind you, publish Vertigo.) But picking a fight with the tolerance level of the American people -- a public that made properties like Chappelle's Show, Borat, The Sopranos, Deadwood, 300, etc. etc. major major major successes -- is patently ludicrous.

Your essay reeks of moral superiority and I object. I know for a fact that I would not have been outraged by nudity in Secret Six. My family would not have been outraged. My friends would not have been outraged. My co-workers would not have been outraged. Almost every single person I know would have been perfectly fine with this. Are you saying that I am not "mainstream America"? I disagree.

Look, I think it comes down to this: I like to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Your argument assumes the worst in people without any evidence. My suggestion is, I feel like you would spend less time angry at the world if you tried my approach. If your first thought when you saw that Secret Six panel was: "if they drew her anatomically correct, people would have accepted it," you would had a much more pleasant experience.

Respectfully,
Roel

No, the image didn't ruin the book for me at all, Tyson. And it's not really the nudity or lack thereof that made me pause - it's the ridiculous ways Walker and DC tried to hide it. The weird LACK of nipples and vagina made it more noticeable. Knockout has plenty of hair (that's for Paperghost, who wanted to know), so just draw more of it. Or, you know, put her in a towel. Yes, she's Apokoliptian, so maybe she doesn't care about being naked, but if she were wearing a towel, would anyone freak out and say, "Warriors from Apokolips wouldn't wear towels!" I doubt it. By not only making her naked but by making her look even less like a normal human being, DC is drawing attention to it, which is weird. If you're going to have people drawn naked, make them naked. Yes, it's a pretty gratuitous drawing, but it's still, in my mind, "non-sexual." Knockout isn't trying to seduce anyone, she just wants breakfast.

And I wonder about your comment about DC and Marvel marketing to their audience. I don't doubt it, but it seems like DC and Marvel are well behind the curve as to who's reading their books. If we believe the doomsayers, no kids are reading their comics. But DC and Marvel still think they do. And I'll stick by my contention that a drawing of Knockout naked is a lot less damaging to a kids' psyche than, say, the rape of Sue Dibny (to bring out an oldie but a goodie - and Identity Crisis was, after all, not labeled with a "mature readers" tag, so presumably kids bought it).

And T., I've complained about the excessive violence of SOME books (like The Boys, but that wasn't because of the children), but overall, it doesn't bother me.

I am a long time Elfquest reader. In one of the oPINIon pieces by Richard Pini, one of the creators, he talks about a woman. In one comic, there was kind of a pre-battle orgy. A very tasteful one, actually, by a people who were going to go to a major battle the next day. The whole 'one last enjoy life fling, because tomorrow we're probably dead.'.

Anyway, this lady wrote to tell them that she'd cut out those pages as being inappropriate, yada yada. What puzzled him was that the violence two pages later, with elves and trolls dying in pools of blood...why was THAT okay, but sex wasn't?

It's a common theme... It's odd. We don't want our kids to 'grow up too fast', so we give them half-sexualized images, which probably do more harm.

this reminds me of the time when then attorney general john ashcroft had a statue covered.

when a white nationalist with backwards religous views can be appointed to an office of such power without mass outrage by the populace it shows how far the united states has yet to go.

will a statue with exposed breasts lead to pedophilia? we live in interesting times.

thanks for the post.

I'm not sure why everyone thinks I'm angry when I post here. This didn't make me angry at all, just a bit puzzled.

Roel, you bring up some very good points, but I have to disagree with you because of the nature of the examples you use. Sheena was a long time ago (Airplane was PG too, and that featured nudity, but that was 1980), and I would argue mainstream America has gotten much more uptight about these things. All the examples you use are NOT mainstream America. You cite South Park, Chapelle's Show, The Sopranos, Deadwood, but none of those television shows are on network television, none of them reach an audience on par with network television (they get "buzz" on the Internet and among critics, sure, but for comics, at least, we have seen what "buzz" does - absolutely nothing in terms of sales) and none of the comics you mention come without a "mature contents" warning. Something like CSI, which shows horrifically graphic violence but, as far as I know, wouldn't dare show nudity, is a better comparison. Deadwood would NEVER be shown on network television, and rightfully so. But Secret Six is the equivalent of a television show on network television, and networks wouldn't dare show nudity, even if it's in a non-sexual content. Remember the uproar over Dennis Franz' butt on NYPD Blue? Yes, that was 1993, but I would still argue we've become more uptight since then.

I'm not sure how this post reeks of moral superiority, but that's fine if you think so. You say that no one you know would have a problem with naked women in their comics, and that's probably true. I'm not talking about adults. I'm talking about adults with children who read this, and the idea that violence is perfectly fine with them but a naked woman isn't. Jason points out John Ashcroft covering a statue of justice. All you have to do is look at banned books to realize that there IS a big uproar over "objectionable" material. We have seen comic retailers arrested for selling "adult" material to adults, with the books not even out in public. The reason we don't hear an uproar over the nudity in mainstream comic books (DC and Marvel superhero stuff) is because there isn't any nudity. If DC shipped this with everything showing, there would have been a problem somewhere. I certainly can't base that on evidence, because they didn't, but based on the freaking out that goes on when a library tries to stock certain books, I imagine I'm not far off.

As I've pointed out over and over, I have no interest in seeing DC and Marvel publish naked superheroes just standing around. That is not what I'm saying here. I'm saying that if they're going to go this far, go all the way with it. Don't be half-assed about it, because this kind of weird depiction of a female isn't doing anyone any good. On network television, they always have a woman in some kind of nightgown after she has sex. That's ridiculous - she'd be naked. But at least they don't airbrush out her nipples! Like I said in my comment that I was typing while you were typing yours, put Knockout in a towel. That's perfectly fine.

Thanks for the thoughts. You're certainly right about many things, but I still have to disagree.

when a white nationalist with backwards religous views can be appointed to an office of such power without mass outrage by the populace it shows how far the united states has yet to go.

Geez, you people are such melodramatic drama queens. I'd love to see you grow up in a country that actually had a dictator the way my parents did. If there's any valid criticism we can levy against Americans, it's that we're a little too pampered and unappreciative. And "backwards religious views?" Classy. The real irony is that despite statements like that against religious people, I bet you fancy yourself to be a paragon of tolerance.

"My No-Prize explanation is that because Knockout was bred on Apokolips, Darkseid has some kind of eugenics program that eliminates nipples and a vagina because they are connected with birth and breast-feeding, and his warriors need neither (WE'LL SAVE THE DISCUSSION OF HOW SHE PEES FOR ANOTHER DAY). That makes sense, right?" - Greg Burgas (emphasis mine)

Umm, you guys do know that women DON'T PEE OUT OF THEIR VAGINAS, right? Or are you all too busy forming opinions about censored nudity in comic books to bother to simply understand what it is you're even looking at a picture of?

If this gets any more nuts, we're gonna end up on Fandom Wank. I'll make sure of it, even.

Anyway, I think I get what Greg's getting at- it's not that they don't show nudity at all, it's that they get this close to the line but step back at the last minute, despite not showing such restraint when it comes to graphic violence.

I've got a theory (that it's a- dammit.) Even though DC and Marvel aren't really in the business of publishing comics for children- except, really, as a subdivision of their publishing- their characters are still sold and seen as children's characters. DC won't publish The Erotic Adventures of Wonder Woman because they want to be able to put Wonder Woman on lunchboxes, and they don't want any media backlash. Knockout's not half as prominent as Wonder Woman, which may be the reason they can get this far, but she's still part of the company's "family" of gaudily dressed superpowered people, so I think there's a line there (possibly unofficial, but I wouldn't be surprised if Time Warner had it written down somewhere.)

What I'd like to see- well, the Big Two should either crap or get off the pot, as it were. If DC Comics wants the core DCU to be for mature readers, and they've almost entirely given up on the kid audience by this point, then be for mature readers and use nudity when the story calls for it. If DC Comics wants to be family entertainment, then give Knockout at least a towel and turn down the bloodspray.

"In India and Hong Kong, two of the biggest international movie markets, it’s still scandalous to have a liplock on film among married couples!!"

Uh, just curious - what are you basing the Hong Kong thing on, actual experience or something you read? Because I spent a fair bit of time in both the Mainland and Hong Kong, and I gotta tell ya, there was plenty of liplocking action with nary an eyelid batted. In between the endless amounts of slo-mo gun-fu, people being punched through the skull, endlessly exploitative rape scenes served up as some sort of bizarre comedy entertainment and practically mainstream Cat III movies, I can't say I ever remember anyone really caring about kissing in their movies.all these things and more have existed in mainstream chinese cinema for decades.

"Also, Europeans supposedly are more squeamish about violence on film than we are, so I’m sure it all evens out in the end."

don't worry about us, we're a continent of savages with a long, dark past who enjoy throwing bottles at peoples faces in football matches, rioting with police, getting our kicks from wonderfully violent movies dressed as art house and reminding everyone how much we rocked the Nazis socks in world war 2. violence? bring it on

"But picking a fight with the tolerance level of the American people — a public that made properties like Chappelle’s Show, Borat, The Sopranos, Deadwood, 300, etc. etc."

...borat was a huge success outside of america before you'd even heard of him, which is what led to the movie being made in the first place. in no way did they "make" the borat "property". i particularly love the wikipedia entry which opens with

"This article is about the character. For the film, see Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. For the British compilation spinoff, see Borat's Television Programme."

...which seems to imply the tv programs came after the movie. gotta love that "british compilation spinoff"...!

Do you people even read the news? Do you not remember all those late night monologues about "wardrobe malfunctions"? Do you not even register when government and religious movements howl about morality? How can you say we're (in terms of a mathematical average, not personally) not uptight about sex? You have to be either willfully ignorant (well I like nipples and therefore all soccer moms and politicians would be ok with them despite all prior evidence to the contrary!) or from the moon (Americans just don't appreciate everything our country has BESIDES nipples! Like John Ashcroft and Christian fundamentalism! Woooo!).

Yes I'm being flippant about your arguments, but bare with me. I think the main issue is that we nerds are a naturally defensive people (we are, admit it). People see Greg's perfectly reasonable question of "why are nipples such a big deal in American entertainment?" and think "But... I'm American, and I like America and nipples! OH NO, NERD HUDDLE FORMATION!" Its the same behavior you see when someone mentions how much whats-his-face sucks at writing or how Deadman is a dumb character, only now it involves nipples so its cool.

Yeah, the Euros are all squeamish about violence alright....

if you don't look at those soccer events that are going on or that World War 2 thing with all the dead people... and I don't mean the the warfare parts.

Uh, just curious - what are you basing the Hong Kong thing on, actual experience or something you read? Because I spent a fair bit of time in both the Mainland and Hong Kong, and I gotta tell ya, there was plenty of liplocking action with nary an eyelid batted. In between the endless amounts of slo-mo gun-fu, people being punched through the skull, endlessly exploitative rape scenes served up as some sort of bizarre comedy entertainment and practically mainstream Cat III movies, I can’t say I ever remember anyone really caring about kissing in their movies.all these things and more have existed in mainstream chinese cinema for decades.

In most Asian movies I've seen, from Japan and Hong Kong, liplocks are extremely rare, especially the open mouthed, extended makeout sessions that are the norm here. The attempted rapes prevalent in the movies are rarely explicitly shown, I've never seen one like, say, the Accused with Jodie Foster. I'm not saying onscreen sex and nudity isn't addressed in those movies, just that it isn't shown as often or as explicitly as in America. I've never seen Chow Yun Fat, Jackie Chan or Jet Li do long, intense makeout scenes. Same goes for many of the other Hong Kong movies, regardless of genre.

To the person using the example of soccer hooligans to show Euros aren't more squeamish about on-screen violence than Americans, that's a real life example, not an onscreen one. The government is known to regularly censor violence from TV programs and the vulgarity and explicit violence of entertainment like Sopranos, Hostel, Hills Have Eyes, Kill Bill and splatter flicks is rarely matched by Euro cinema.

It's not a nerd huddle, it's the same culture wars idiocy weve been embroiled in since at least the 1960s, in which rhetoric is paranoically examined for the slightest trace of whatever bete noir the culture warrior is against. Soi-disant PC is one variety of this; the inane "anti-Americanism" spotting that passes for conservatism in some circles is another. (I fully expect to be excoriated as anti-American by someone or other for using the French phrase "soi-disant.")

In general, the moment someone declares some statement or other "anti-American" and then behaves as if their labeling operation constitutes some sort of refutation, I give up on that person so far as rational conversation is a prupose. I do the same for those whose version of history is nothing more than the long story of their own victimization, a victimization that conveniently leaves them without moral agency and so leaves them entirely excused.

Those aren't nerd behaviors: depressingly, they're American politics in the 21st century.

Anyway, to return to a tamer version of the original question, why is it that...

-- American TV, comics, and movies seem to be written and rated by people who assume that nudity is the same thing as sex?

-- American TV, comics, and movies generally seem more comfortable depicting graphic violence than depicting either nudity or graphic sexuality?

Note the word "seem" in both questions before assuming that my questions are inherently biased.

One other thing...when anyone, anywhere, on any side says or writes "most Americans/politicians/regular people/Europeans/etc.", there is a 99.9% change that what's really happening is a "No True Scotsman" moment in disguise.

"Sure, person X may seem this way or have said this thing, but they're not like most X people..."

"Geez, you people are such melodramatic drama queens. I’d love to see you grow up in a country that actually had a dictator the way my parents did. If there’s any valid criticism we can levy against Americans, it’s that we’re a little too pampered and unappreciative."

Melodramatic queens? Sure.

But saying we've at least got it better than a dictatorship is aiming a little low, don't you think?

"In most Asian movies I’ve seen, from Japan and Hong Kong, liplocks are extremely rare, especially the open mouthed, extended makeout sessions that are the norm here. The attempted rapes prevalent in the movies are rarely explicitly shown, I’ve never seen one like, say, the Accused with Jodie Foster. I’m not saying onscreen sex and nudity isn’t addressed in those movies, just that it isn’t shown as often or as explicitly as in America."

heh, you totally need to make an appointment with your local Category III movie retailer dude

"I’ve never seen Chow Yun Fat, Jackie Chan or Jet Li do long, intense makeout scenes. Same goes for many of the other Hong Kong movies, regardless of genre."

Yeah, but then Chow Yun Fat and Jackie Chan are there in those kung fu movies - a very specific genre of Chinese cinema - to smack people up and not get jiggy with it. historically, kung fu movies only ever tend to delve into sexual matters when the bad guy is raping the heroine or dragging the females off to the slave traders. but then, Chinese movies don't feel the need to beat you over the head with cheesecake like many American movies do either, yet I can point to many, many sexually charged movies from China with no sexual contact present where the eroticism and sexual energy is as electric as anything from America where we're subjected to five or ten minutes of groaning and jiggling. and then on the other hand, you still have the Hellzapoppin movies and Cat III titles where quite literally anything goes, and put a lot of the supposedly more "in your face" US stuff to shame. At any rate, they have a much broader balance than you initially suggested and they certainly don't see "liplocks" as "scandalous" - at least, nowhere I've been in China. of course, China is a big place and I'm sure some backwater province somewhere is shocked by it, but its definitely not the status quo by any means.

"The government is known to regularly censor violence from TV programs and the vulgarity and explicit violence of entertainment like Sopranos, Hostel, Hills Have Eyes, Kill Bill and splatter flicks is rarely matched by Euro cinema."

Everything from the 70s Zombie horror / exploitation / cannibal snuff films from the 70s right up to the present day with endless Eurocentric movies such as La Haine, Dobermann and Irreversible - Irreversible in particular being one of the most sickening, stomach churning and unflinching portrayals of the depths of human depravity imaginable - would suggest we can easily hold our own against the titles you cite.

anyway...uh....comics.

Those boobs suck!

Hi Greg,

Just wanted to address some questions you had from my last post.

You wonder why I thought you were angry. Well, your original essay concluded with "Sorry for the rant." The dictionary defines "rant" as "to speak or write in an angry or violent manner." The image my mind's eye was that you were angry. That was the picture you painted.

Why did I feel you come across as morally superior? Well, that's an easier one for me to answer. On eof the very first sentence you wrote was "I was reminded again how idiotic Americans are." That is an awfully condescending remark. That's the sentence that actually pushed me to compose a response. If you look at that sentence, you might see why I would interpret that as morally superior. You just called the country idiotic. It's not exactly a generous assessment on your part.

I know that the comics I mentioned have mature content labels on them. In my post, I wrote "And really, if DC stuck a “Mature Content” label on it, then readers would barely bat an eyelash."

The reason I used Sheena as an example was that I tried to stretch as far back in my memory banks to find the earliest illustration to prove my point. But I agree with you that in the 27 years since then, it's possible that the moral climate has changed. I should have picked something more current.

I guess your definition of mainstream America and my definition of Mainstream America are different, which is why we are in disagreement. I think that cable TV is part of Mainstream America, while you think that Mainstream America watches network TV. I think that Secret Six could have been published with nipples and genitalia and there would have been no outrage and you believe that "people would have gone nuts." I guess I just don't see it. I don't know where these people are that would go nuts over nudity in Secret Six.

Regards,
Roel

"To the person using the example of soccer hooligans to show Euros aren’t more squeamish about on-screen violence than Americans, that’s a real life example, not an onscreen one. The government is known to regularly censor violence from TV programs and the vulgarity and explicit violence of entertainment like Sopranos, Hostel, Hills Have Eyes, Kill Bill and splatter flicks is rarely matched by Euro cinema."

I'm European and I've lived in the US for the past 2 years and it's impossible not to see the differences. I had my number of cultural shocks, with all sorts of things sometimes sexually related. I lived in a country where we have TV ads of shower gel with women showing their breast all the time. But my point is, Europeans do regard Americans (in common sense) as more prude than Euros. It's all we get from the media, they care to give more attention to incident's like Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction and consequences that build up this image of America. This more recent, because I remember the stereotype being the opposite in the 80's 90's. As for violence, from my experience we also have the same idea, that Americans are more squeamish about violence than Euros. Although we do get a lot of "violent" productions here, from what I've seen so far we don't censor any. I'll give you the Kill Bill example which I saw in the theater in Europe full color non-censored, one version only, while in the US they had a censored version or versions, one with no blood scenes and another which the crazy 88 scene is in black and white. Sopranos is also non-censored. Yesterday, Good Friday they showed the Passion of the Christ in primetime, original version, it had a warning though but I know lots of families that watched together... they found it educational. And by the way, one of the most important shows on primetime TV in most european countries is the news report which takes around one hour or more of pure news and graphical violence, especially when there is war involved. And people have dinner with the TV on watching it. I think the idea that Europeans are squeamish with violence might come from English or German cases/news of violence in children, videogames, etc., but that's not all of Europe. I've lived also in Eastern Europe and believe me, they do enjoy their full of violence action-flick (as well as their nude/sex movies).
But so far, Argentina has been the least prude country I've seen. You walk around Buenos Aires and there's Maxim magazines with full frontals. It's funny to see this "compatibility" of tolerance towards sex and nudity in countries that were fundamentally roman catholic and whose history comes from intolerance and violence.
By the way, in the way in the US I lived in Washington which I considered a very open-minded state.

maybe it's just the angle, but i totally thought that was giganta at first.

Melodramatic queens? Sure.

But saying we’ve at least got it better than a dictatorship is aiming a little low, don’t you think?

I didn't say we "at least" have it better than a dictatorship. If I did, I would be a total idiot, like those ranters in the street comparing the Bush administration to Hitler.

No, we have it A MILLION TIMES BETTER than a dictatorship. Anyone who even tries to make claims of similarities between what we have now and a real dictatorship has obviously never been exposed to one or disingenuous.

Just the fact that people can make such statements publicly without any fear of reprisal or second thoughts undermines the comparison.

Omar, what are politics but another nerd hobby? Political nerds are not so different from comic book nerds. Both sit around memorizing stats and conitnuity and arguing about who could beat who in a fight. Nerds will be nerds, regardless of subject.

In general, the moment someone declares some statement or other “anti-American” and then behaves as if their labeling operation constitutes some sort of refutation, I give up on that person so far as rational conversation is a prupose. I do the same for those whose version of history is nothing more than the long story of their own victimization, a victimization that conveniently leaves them without moral agency and so leaves them entirely excused.

Those aren’t nerd behaviors: depressingly, they’re American politics in the 21st century.

Yes Omar, how can I take an article that explicitly says "I was reminded again how idiotic Americans are" to be anti-American? There go us conservatives again, trying to twist a words like "idiotic" into an insult, and taking the word "Americans" to refer to Americans.

"I didn’t say we “at least” have it better than a dictatorship. If I did, I would be a total idiot, like those ranters in the street comparing the Bush administration to Hitler.

No, we have it A MILLION TIMES BETTER than a dictatorship. Anyone who even tries to make claims of similarities between what we have now and a real dictatorship has obviously never been exposed to one or disingenuous."

T, who here was comparing Bush to Hitler? No one? Huh, then why'd you bring it up? Almost as if you were constructing some sort of "straw man" you could attack in order to discredit arguments you disagreed with.

Oh and look, now you've set it up so that anyone who makes any "similarities" to a dictatorship (which of course you will be on hand to define as you see them) is an idiot or a liar. Nice work stifling the debate, I'd have hated for a conversation to start.

Everyone knows that things should never be compared when they can be considered insulting to jingoist Moon-men.

Roel - well, the "rant" word was a bit tongue in cheek, but I see your point. As for the morally superior part, that's also a good point, but in a country where American Idol is the top-rated program, I don't have a big problem being morally superior!

Anyone who thinks I'm anti-America just because I happen to think a lot of people are idiots is making a mountain out of a molehill. T. knows this (I disagree with him on almost everything, but he knows I still think this is a great - if flawed - country), but he's still doing it. I have many issues with America and its people, and its bizarre attitude toward nudity/sex as opposed to violence is one of them. Yes, I think it's idiotic. I like ABBA. This may make me idiotic, and I'm an American.

The only reason I mention that cable isn't mainstream is because you still have to pay to get it. Yes, it's included in many television packages, but I actually know more than one person who, in 2007, does not have cable. I suspect the number of people without cable exceeds the number with it. That's all I'm saying. I think of cable programs as part of the mainstream, but that's because I've had cable for years and it's part of MY mainstream. I'm still amazed when I meet people who not only don't have HBO, but don't even have basic cable, or if they do, never watch television. But that's just me.

And I've mentioned it before, and it's never going to happen, but I would LOVE to see DC or Marvel publish a regular mainstream superhero comic book with a naked person completely without fanfare and, if it's in a non-sexual situation, without a Mature Content label (given the Internet, that's probably not going to happen). I think the reaction would be one that proves my argument. We get a shade of Peter Parker's penis in an issue of that Kaare Andrews thing and people act like it's the Apocalypse. So I still don't think I'm that far off. Unfortunately, I doubt if we'll ever know, because DC and Marvel won't ever do it.

How is it not anti-American? Because complaining about a particular social attitude or set of attitudes that are a feature of contemporary American society and arguing against America's Constitutional principles, overall legal and political system, and opportunities. You can complain about behaviors or attitudes common to Americans without hating America.

Quite how "Americans are, in general, squeamish about sexuality" is not some sort of rhetorical weapon of mass destruction. Stating that you prefer a European to an American reaction to certain elements of pop culture is not tantamount to proclaiming that you'd rather live in Stalin's Russia, or even France or the UK.

This is where my pejorative "culture warrior" comes in; Greg complains about the difference in what he thinks are American and European attitudes to some fairly minor thing, something not having much of anything to do with most of the core and valuable principles of American government or American life, and somehow he's "anti-American," as if disliking that oen thing means disliking everything else about the country.

This "prefer every single thing about America without reservation" criterion is asinine, and frankly smacks of eliminationist rhetoric. It makes you look like a rigid, stick-up-arse fool. Forgive my British spelling there; I like the sound of "arse" better than that of ass. Guess I might as well renounce my citizenship and burn the flag, huh, T.?

T., the comparison was clearly intimated by your post. Don't play stupid, it's not believable.

Greg, I don't think you're an anti-American person. I think this particular rant was anti-American though because it says the American people are idiots. But the mere fact that the particular rant is anti-American isn't enough to criticize it, because the American people aren't infallible and there is room for Anti-American rants. My problem with the rant is that it's anti-American without a valid basis, for reasons pointed out by Roel.

So yeah, my problem isn't that it's automatically bad because it's anti-American, it's that it's blaming Americans for something unfairly, since I think much of your reasoning in the article is flawed.

And Apocada, I have no idea what you are referring to in your post. What comparison are you talking about?

joffe-

I didn't say anyone here was comparing Bush to Hitler. What I DID say is that anyone who seriously entertains the notion that living under Bush is anything like living under a dictatorship are just as dumb as the people who make Hitler comparisons at the drop of a hat, and I stand by that. Such things are an insult to people who actually DO have it bad under real dictatorships. I have family who've been in prison camps and who've had to leave the old country in exile, I would love to see someone seriously sit down with them and tell them they're having a comparable experience in America under Bush.

Ok Omar, from the piece:

I was reminded again how idiotic Americans are.

and

I am blaming this idiotic puritanical attitude we have in this country

and

What an uptight country I live in!

How is one being narrow-minded by calling the tone of this piece Anti-American? I never said that Burgas "hated America" as you claim, that would be ridiculous. But this particular piece is anti-American. It really is possible to write something anti-American but not hate America. It's possible to write something anti-American yet be patriotic. So for clarification for future respondents, my responses here shouldn't be interpreted as saying Burgas hates America, Burgas roots for terrorists, Burgas is a pinko or Burgas isn't patriotic. All I am saying is that this particular piece, which repreats the premise that Americans are idiotic throughout, is anti-American.

Actually, I think that for somebody to come off as 'anti-american' they would have to be talking about how the government, laws and system of the country are stupid and must be dragged down and changed.

Greg's post is 'anti-stupidity' or 'anti-hypocrisy'. All of his statements have to do with people and their attitudes. Not with the laws of the land.

The term 'anti-american' denotes someone as a political radical, and it's waaaay overused these days. Greg gave his opinion. If you agree with him, fine. If not, la-de-da. The fact that he voiced his opinion was a decidedly american thing to do. Free speech and all that

Like a child under the age of 12 is ever going to open a comic book let alone read it.

So doesn't anyone get naked on Big Brother? they don't do the adults only specials in America?
If not, maybe Burgas has a point?

Why is everybody making such a big deal out of something as simple as culture?

In Japan, nudity is accepted as part of the culture, been to a bathhouse lately? Soo so public.
In Australia, nudity is fine as long as it's after 8:30.

In America, you're forced to be a prude until you're 21?

If people really believe America is populated by prudes, I'm astounded. We're so hypersexualized that I can;t understand why people actually think we suffer from underexposure to sex. Tune into music videos, MTV dating shows, Myspace pages...look at Jenna Jameson's mainstream media tour to promote her autobiography even...porn has become so mainstream and destigmatized, pimps are pop culture heroes these days...I think people are starting with a premise they want to believe, in this case that Americans are too prudish, then look for the evidence to support that view, even if they have to ignore a vast mountain of evidence to the contrary. So basically, ignore MTV's Date My Mom, Desperate Housewives, Jenna Jameson promoting her porno autobio on Tyra Banks in the 4PM after school hour, gratuitious sex on every drama, rap videos, extended sex scenes in every show, threesomes shown on sitcoms (UPN's girlfriends), or any of the other mountains of evidence of our lack of prudishness in this country until you find one thing that fits your hypothesis, in this case the refusal to put pubic hair in a cheesecake shot.

T., your argument works both ways. You choose to ignore Ashcroft's covering of a naked statue, ER canceling plans to show a 60-year-old woman's breasts in an episode about breast cancer because people complained, book banning across the country, the resistance to the vaccine that can stop cervical cancer because it would "encourage" teenaged girls to have sex, and, to use Jenna Jameson, the fact that in Scottsdale, city council members tried to block her legal purchase of a topless club because they wanted it to close down. They later tried to ban lap dancing in strip clubs in an effort to put them out of business. So you ignore the evidence for the prudishness of the country in order to make your case that we're not.

All of your examples are well taken, and it speaks to a weird fascination we have with titillation rather than frank discussion about things. We don't want to talk to our kids about sex, but we don't mind listening to Jenna Jameson talk about it. We don't mind hearing about the lurid details of everyone's sex life, but if we show a nipple, the world will fall apart. As I've been saying all along, this isn't about sex, it's about nudity. Why is it okay to hear all about kinky stuff, but if we show a naked woman in a normal standing pose, it's horrible? And, as I've pointed out, this is in marked contrast to the violence that goes on.

You make very good points. But why, if we're so depraved, is nudity not allowed? That's what puzzles me.

The debate over whether this is endemic to America as a whole, and whether arguing such is anti-American, seems to me to be almost beside the point. It's part of the problem, but as I said there's also the specific nature of the comic book industry in America and the superhero comics of the Big Two in specific. Other media tend to do a better job of either using nudity or bypassing it less awkwardly.

So doesn’t anyone get naked on Big Brother? they don’t do the adults only specials in America?

No and no. There is no nudity on Big Brother or any other network show.

In America, you’re forced to be a prude until you’re 21?

What makes you think it stops at 21?

And from a different poster (lest the wookie take the blame for saying something so stupid):

Umm, you guys do know that women DON’T PEE OUT OF THEIR VAGINAS, right?

Wow. Just wow. And people thought (artist) Brad Walker was the one having trouble with anatomy. It's not coming out of their belly buttons, Gabe...

It's possible to be a prude AND be obsessed with sex. It's one reason sex in America is such a focal point and yet such a prurient product. One unhealthy attitude doesn't cancel out the other.

That's a good point, Joe.

Another example of an unrealistic and stylized obsession with sex being a sympton of prudishness can be seen in Japan. Just look at the role of sex in their pop culture compared to the role of sex in society. And don't even get started on the strange fetishes that pop up along the fringes of Japanese society because of this (seriously, don't. They're gross. (hey, maybe thats why we have furries and jerks like them in our country))

Greg -

Never said that there is NO prudery at all in America. The examples you give are valid. But the examples of prudery are far outweighed by the hypersexualization of the country too. Look at how kids and teens even dance now (freakdancing) and the music videos they watch. The way the media tries to barrage us with sexual images nonstop, what great benefit comes from showing nipples and private parts? Given the tacky people that are abound in media and comics, if we give free license to show full nudity, how long before we see it getting abused by the purveyors of bad taste? Give them an inch, they'll ask for a mile. We'd get such gems as Meltzer adding "depth" and "realism" to Sue Dibny's rape by adding an exposed nipple, sloppy wet penetration and maybe even a money shot (all for the sake of "art" of course). ANd I shudder to think of what hack shock tactic writing WInick would put out if you allowed him to show explicit nudity in superhero comics too. We've already seen incest references, orgies, white slave sex rings and pedophilia in his all-ages books, I'm sure we could trust him to use nudity tastefully. What a lot of progressives don't realize here is that it's easy to let things out of Pandora's box but it's a bitch to put them back in once they're out

Joe -

So all those fixation on sex as seen on MTV programming, hip-hop videos, the pornification of the mainstream, the "stripper workouts" now catching on with soccer moms in aerobics classes all over the country...all of that is evidence not of a desensitization to and destigmatization of sex but rather of prudery? I think you're reaching there.

T.: The fact that those things are noteworthy or tabboo is evidence that this is still a heavily prudish nation. The fact you can kill and maim on tv but nudity is SCARY BIG DEAL is evidence. I never claimed what you seem to say I did, or anything else about desensitization. I said simply that America is a prudish nation obsessed with sex.

And as to what you said to Greg, I find everything you mention far, far, far worse than the naked human body.

"I didn’t say we “at least” have it better than a dictatorship. If I did, I would be a total idiot, like those ranters in the street comparing the Bush administration to Hitler.

No, we have it A MILLION TIMES BETTER than a dictatorship. Anyone who even tries to make claims of similarities between what we have now and a real dictatorship has obviously never been exposed to one or disingenuous.

Just the fact that people can make such statements publicly without any fear of reprisal or second thoughts undermines the comparison."

You might find it in your heart to forgive us for wanting to keep it that way.

There is a contingent of persons in this country who seek to stamp out any attempt to portray human sexuality in the most casual way, they do it like they were apponted personally by god to do so - and they are more often successful than not.

Where this tends to cause problems is hat there is no real consensus on the issue, one person might get away with anything, another might be ruined, and hounded mercilessly - Check the CBLDF website - this generally fits the definition of injustice.

The difference between us and a dictatorship is that we can complain about it, and so we are.

Basically, what it is, is that in America, sex is highly politicized, violence considerably less so - and politics is our latest and greatest teams sport - like most local politics and team sports, the more petty and meaningless it is, the more violent and intractable the participants become.

Truely, I do believe much of the uproar would come as a shock to our Puritan forebearers, who must have gotten considerable sex education simply watchign their farm animals copulate - welcome to the monkey house.

Anyway, it's not an uncommon situation in theocratic countries - sex, being a fundamental human drive - perhaps the fundamental human drive, it is a common target of control for religious institutions - control sex and you pretty much control everything else (get 'em by the balls!).

And while the US is not strictly a theocracy, it has theocratic traditions, and there are plenty of theocrats, or would be theocrats around who haven't given up on the idea.

Such a psychological climate tends to produce a lot of neurotic people, and in fact I believe violence often becomes a substitute for sexuality, i.e., a dominance display intended - on a subconscious level - to elevate ones status and appear more sexually attractive, when not the simple product of sheer sexual frustration.

The recent events at Virginia Tech seem to indicate something to this effect in terms of the motives of the killer, basic shyness possibly exacerbated by a conflict between strict religious values and and a natural inclination to get busy, resulting in a psychotic break.

Penetration by proxy.

"Wow. Just wow. And people thought (artist) Brad Walker was the one having trouble with anatomy. It’s not coming out of their belly buttons, Gabe…"

To be absolutely fair, Gabe's right, it doesn't. A woman's bladder isn't connected to what is actually the vagina (which is only a specific part of a woman's genitalia, and not the correct term for the whole thing, as it's often incorrectly used for); it's located in roughly the same place, to be true, but it's completely different plumbing.

And I really can't believe that where a lady pees from is the subject of my very first posting here.

Getting on topic, I don't know whether Americans are more prone to go into morally outraged meltdown over nudity than any other culture, since I think it's fair to say that there's no shortage of moralistic killjoys and squeamish prudes in Europe, Australia and most other parts of Western society. But there's definitely something a bit weirdly screwed up about most western attitudes to sex and nudity; it's certainly not right that perfectly natural (and indeed necessary) elements of our biological and psychological make-up are treated as something to be shamed of. And I think it's fair to say that kids are probably going to be more screwed up by seeing an act of violence than they are by seeing a pair of breasts.

Annnnnd I've just noticed that the last post on this message was made in April.

Wow. I really am coming late to this party, aren't I?