Marvel Presents: Hawt Tentacle Porn!

The Lowest Common Denominator Just Got Lower

By Layla Lawlor
June 1, 2007

Hark, what's that plummeting sound? Could it be the sound of Marvel Comics' standards falling, yet again?

So Marvel, in its infinite wisdom, licenses Sideshow Collectibles to release a collector's statuette of Mary Jane Watson bent over in an anatomically unlikely position, butt in the air and thong underwear peeking over the top of her skin-tight jeans, washing Spider-Man's costume in bare feet and pearls. It shouldn't come as a huge surprise, except perhaps to Marvel, that people are annoyed or upset by having a favorite character portrayed as a vacant-eyed lust object. The backlash to the criticism, at the above link or elsewhere in the comics blogosphere, is ... well, equally unsurprising, but even discounting the obvious trolls (my "favorite" comment from the Livejournal thread involves the unlikely phrase "twat-waffles" — I mean, who actually says that?) there's a lot of apparently genuine bafflement.

"So why the big freakout over a harmless statuette?" Dirk Deppey wonders over at TCJ.

Why indeed? Well, for starters, before MaryJanegate even has a chance to die down, Marvel does it again with a lovely bit of tentacle-rape porn masquerading as the cover to Heroes For Hire #13.

It isn't one statuette or one cover. And it isn't the porny hawtness, either. I don't mind porn, and I don't mind knowing that fans are going to entertain hot porny fantasies about fictional characters. I read and write fanfic; I know that it's part of how the audience engages with a character. Heck, if Marvel or DC wanted to put out a line of officially licensed porn, I'd say go for it — especially if we get men's and women's titles. (In Bizarro World, maybe. But, hey, a girl can dream.)

But what makes this so creepy is that I don't think anyone at Marvel realizes what they're doing. This isn't porn to them; it's business as usual. And these aren't one-note characters who were created to play the part of the passive partner in a pornographic fantasy. These are established characters with a history and personality and fan following — characters that people identify with, characters they love. If a fan chooses to play with the characters in this sort of way, that's one thing, but this is canon. It's how the characters' official owners and caretakers view them: as sex objects suitable for little else than being molested by tentacles or doing Peter Parker's laundry.

So what's wrong with that? What's wrong with it is that we readers, male or female, identify with the characters that we read about. We find characters who remind us of ourselves, and project ourselves into them. We live vicariously through them. And when the characters that we identify with are stuck in the passive role in a porn fantasy, that makes us feel annoyed, hurt or threatened — or, at the very least, bounces us right out of the fictional world, which is the exact opposite of what good fiction should do.

So why does it do that? Why can't women identify with porn stars? Well, imagine, if you will, a nice statuette of Batman winsomely reclining in Robin's arms, one hand fluttering at his forehead, full lips upraised for a kiss. Imagine the likelihood of DC producing such a statuette: zero. But imagine the fanboy response if they actually did.

Heterosexual males identify with certain qualities in Batman and other superheroes: strength, power, aloofness. DC and Marvel cater to that by depicting male heroes in poses of power, strength and control. Even when they're knocked down, injured or captive, they still exude power — from their body language, from the way the scene is staged, you get the impression that they're going to leap back up again and turn the tables on their attackers.

Not so, the Heroes For Hire cover; not so, the Mary Jane statuette. When a female character goes from being strong and capable to objectified, powerless, stereotypical, made an object of exaggerated sexual interest, lacking all the qualities that make her strong or interesting or multi-faceted — it undermines everything in her that a female reader would identify with. It makes women feel squirmy in exactly the same way that a wriggling, simpering Batman makes heterosexual male readers squirmy. You, the reader, project yourself into the character for an illusion of strength and power. When those qualities are taken away from the character, it undermines them in you. Rational? Not really. But identifying with our favorite fictional characters is what makes us fans.

Look at Colleen Wing and Black Cat's classic porn-star expressions on the Heroes For Hire cover — the reader is being invited to ogle them, not sympathize with them. Now take a look at Pete Wisdom in a fairly similar situation. He's tied up with tentacles, too — but he's straining to escape, and fully clothed, and there's no sexual symbolism in sight. Which of these characters do you empathize with? Which would you rather be?

Treating the fans with respect means treating the characters with respect. That doesn't mean that female heroes can't be sexy, can't get knocked down and tied up, can't do the laundry. But some freakin' balance would be nice, that's all. You can walk into a comic store on any given week, grab a handful of Marvel or DC comics, and the odds are overwhelming that you're going to see at least a couple of scantily clad women in submissive or come-hither poses. If the mainstream companies actually want to attract fans of both genders, as opposed to paying lip service to it, then a nice start would be actually thinking about how not to alienate half your potential customer base — or at least offer them something to look at, too. Manga isn't popular with women because it's lacking in scantily clad, sexy women; it's full of them. But it's also full of scantily clad, sexy men. It's a whole lot easier to ignore the one when you're being given a dose of what you want, too. If Marvel and DC are going to serve up generous helpings of cheesecake, then why not offer at least a side of beefcake to go along with it? (And no, women — at least, most women — don't want solid blocks of muscle with chins that dwarf their entire faces. What men think women find attractive, and what women actually find attractive, are two wholly different things.)

I think that some of the backlash against the criticism of the Mary Jane and Heroes For Hire imagery is based on a mistaken belief that women are objecting to cheesecake in general — that we're advocating some kind of pseudo-feminist utopia where every female superhero is clad in a knee-length parka. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I, personally, haven't got a single problem with the incontrovertible fact that men like to look at sexy women and like to buy comics with sexy women on the covers. The problem is that the women in the above examples aren't people. They're blow-up dolls. The problem isn't that cheesecake exists at all; it's that this particular kind of cheesecake — which depicts women not as sympathetic characters but as action figures being posed for male amusement — turns off female readers in droves, especially when it's not balanced by an equivalent effort to cater to women's baser needs, as well.

Ironically, Adam Hughes, who did the original designs for the Mary Jane statuette, is an artist whose paintings stand as an excellent example of cheesecake that's sexy and fun and respectful to the characters. I like his art. His gallery shows an array of women who aren't warped into sexually submissive poses. They look straight at the viewer; they stand tall; they look like they could easily get themselves out of whatever situation they're in. His Wonder Woman has noticeable muscles and a trim, athletic build; you can see that she works out. In a couple of the Tomb Raider shots, Lara Croft's famous cleavage is barely even visible (which is quite a feat!). Aside from obvious differences in the way that men and women hold their bodies, you could put a male superhero into many of these poses without it looking at all strange or unusual.

So here's the equation:

Half-naked women on Adam Hughes covers = sexy, playful, fun, strong, engaging.

Half-naked women on Heroes For Hire #13 = weak, scared, powerless, skeevy.

Not all cheesecake is created equal.

Sexy people on comic covers = good! Sexy people help comics (and statuettes) sell. Higher sales figures are good for Marvel and DC, good for the stores and good for readers.

Sexy people on comic covers that consistently cater only to a narrow demographic and/or actually alienate certain demographics = bad! Why would you want to drive away so many possible readers (women; parents; men who aren't into S&M and bondage) when you don't have to? With either the Heroes For Hire cover or the Mary Jane statuette, just a few changes to the overall look would have resulted in something that was still sexy, but not actively creepy.

You can have your cheesecake and eat it too. You just have to try. With comics readership slipping across the board, you'd think that the marketing departments at Marvel and DC would be studying this sort of PR fiasco, listening to what people are saying, trying to figure out how to market their comics to a wider audience or at least avoid alienating their existing readers and narrowing their audience still further.

Instead we get another helping of the same crap, different day.

And I'll believe that Marvel and DC treat their characters, and their fans, equally only when I see that gay Batman statue on the shelves next to Mary Jane's butt.

Mary Jane comiquette thread on Livejournal
Heroes For Hire #13 cover (and discussion)
Dirk Deppey discusses MaryJanegate