why is a well hung man creepy ?

That's where we differ, RJP3. You think it's just a "well-hung" guy, and I think it looks like like an erection.

The former is not creepy to show on the cover of a superhero comic, but I think the latter is, similar to the seemingly panty-less drawing of Cyclone on the cover of the previous issue of JSA (and similar to the other two horrible statues of female superheroes Don also mentioned in the above link).

dont worry you dont have to have sex with him --- or think about it sexually
or do you mean to say all wild sexual images MUST make the viewer think
about sex and they can not help it ---- if so --- all comic books should be banned
from the hands of children

Still, I get the hyper endowment bit, (and I think that it would still be an impressive package) but what makes it ...uh... stand out more is the fact that the lines or shadowing of the costume all point towards his crotch, giving it more attention, or at least more of an illusion it's that much bigger and that much more erect than most other crotches painted by Alex Ross.

I'd be more upset however, if the art was of a sexualized objectified nature ... a zipper running down just above his pubes, a woman running her hands down her chest on one side, and a man on one leg for example, all the while with the same amount of emphasis as the costume suggests.

Sexual objectification unfortunately continues to run rampant through comic books and I think is the bigger issue ... pun not intended.

It's one thing to draw realisticly or unrealistcly sized goods, but it's the context of how those are played up. Women in comics are more often than not depicted with bodies and poses that are not attainable by all women, *and* are usually drawn in a way that is sexually suggestive or revealing.

Just as men are drawn with bulging muscles like Superman or Batman, very few males are drawn that aren't toned and ripped but they aren't posed in such a way or clothed in such a way that depicts sex. You probably won't see Superman bursting forth from water with his head and arms back dripping wet before he kicks a villain's ass as you would Power Girl.

Not that sex or sexuality is wrong, but when it is drawn for that alone and does not present a reason behind it, or justification, then that is where the problem lies.

Wonder Woman, for example, being drawn with a more muscular physique and larger sized breasts and little else is one thing if it is meant to convey that the character is not afraid of her body, and is invulnerable in the sense she needn't have to wear a lot, and just happens to be endowed as she is, but when the breasts or g-string sized thong she can be depicted in is the forefront of that for the sake of appealing to a horny heterosexual young male, then that is a problem.

My mom grew up with Wonder Woman and Supergirl, and she helped me get into comics, and picking up them now, she was distraught at the "out of proportion" bodies of both.

I'm all for having a sexy looking hero, but that shouldn't be the center of it. I think that Wonder Woman can be impressive with a "bulkier" exterior, or that of the "classic" look as appearing on all sorts of media and merchandise these days, where thinner arms can still equally represent that a woman who may seem "frail" compared to a big man is as strong as or more so than one.

Like the controversy over the Mary Jane Laundry statue, although not necessarily wrong that she is in a cheesecake pose or even that she has massive breasts popping out with her thong showing, but it's more wrong that there was probably no discussion to presenting it as "Mary Jane Discovers Peter's Secret" (as Adam Hughes says that was his initial intent) than to sell some T & A. There was probably no discussion that even if MJ is indeed wanting to be sexy and wants to show off that it could be depicted sexy by having more average sized breasts or at least wearing a t-shirt. But I digress.

Society is all about sex and putting it in every ad from bubble gum to candles and beyond. But a lot of that sex or definition of sexualizing one's gender is predominantly female.

Obviously magazines such as Men's Health are all about depicting Today's "perfect" male specimen, but the ratio out there in magazines, comic books, or other media is definitely not equal.

Puritan, Quaker, or just one's own awkwardness towards male sexuality either by a complex or a type of homophobia by depicting a man with sex organs is an issue, but the fact that Citizen Steel (who now can probably joked as having a permanant hard on or erection of steel) actually having a package isn't.

If you make something up and pretend someone else said it, it doesn't make them a hypocrite.

Pun intended.

I say it’s about time the basement dwelling boys of comics fandom got a taste of their own medicine.

Then go rant at them.

Are you even talking to someone in particular or are you just hopping on the bandwagon that feels most justified?

Do us all a favor, and stay the hell away from things you know nothing about.

Being a feminist and heterosexual female superhero comics fan, I'm finding it increasingly more difficult to pick up the average mainstream superhero comic without being ashamed and disgusted by the various depictions of Supergirl, Powergirl...et al, - characters that, we shouldn't forget, were intended to appeal to and bring in young female readers. However, this doesn't mean that I want the artists' bizarre playground of sexualized superheroes to be leveled by having equally exaggerated depictions of male genitalia. So guess what... I find the protruding, ERECT-looking penis of Citizen Steel CREEPY. Guess I'm an immature adolescent boy too, eh?

I say it's about time the basement dwelling boys of comics fandom got a taste of their own medicine.

We're not allowed to make fun of covers anymore?

After comparing them to Citizen Steel, not only do I see *no* erection in evidence, I honestly think that his "package" would have to be deliniated much more explicitly (As in Dorian's final two comparison pics) to approach the same realm of surreal, physics-defying gratuity that allows for a superheroic woman's spandex outfit to routinely detail every erogenous zone, crawl up her rear in a viscious wedgie, show graphic cameltoe and a perfect bikini wax, and lovingly cup and pocket (rather than depress) perky braless breasts with permanently erect nipples.

She fights crime with friction rashes *and* a yeast infection! To say nothing of the flying, skirted nymphettes with no underwear at all. All the better to give spectators an eyeful and subtextually imply readiness for a sexual encounter, right?

Perhaps fear of furors like this are what lead to the comparative modesty of Superman and Batman's overbreifs, which seemingly behave less like spandex, and hide those naturally occuring vertical wrinkles that point wangward. But if your gonna be honest about it, the bulge is still there. http://thatsmyskull.blogspot.com/2007/03/be-careful-what-you-bitch-about-ask-for.html And why shouldn't it be? No feminist so far has called for *concave* chests on females, so lets stop depicting the male pubic zone as a shadowy, flat indistinction.

Actually, in the context of what we've seen of the character so far, he's no doubt examining and experiencing his new, liquid-steel-enhanced body.

Instead of writers and artists toning down the cheescake and soft porn in regards to women, they have instead increased the hyper-sexualization of the male characters in order to make all things equal.

"Huuuhh," he's saying. "Huhuuuuuuuhh."

Weirdo.