Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

[Almaz]

I've seen this discussion summed up like this somewhere:
"A Key that opens many Locks, is a master key. A Lock that opens for many keys, is a bad Lock"

And a mouth that is hungry for that much sausage is either damn starving or it's going through all the little toothpick wieners. Either way, chomp.

I dislike Harley Quinn's new outfit because she doesn't look impish or clown-y anymore. She is supposed to be a bit of a counterpart to the Joker, who was surprisingly conservative in his attire for his personality. Likewise Harley Quinn's outfit being that revealing seems a bit out of place. She seems like, if she should be clothed with massive harlotry as the goal, to be doing so in a stylish and highly dressy way. The Arkham Asylum Quinn, for whatever reason, "fits" her aesthetic. This one doesn't. It clashes.

You should be able to line up all the Harley Quinn outfits over the years and all the Joker costumes over the years and all the Batman suits over the years and be able to see the common thread through all of them, to the point where they to some extent look like they were made with the same threads (literally). This one... steps out of that line.

Given how slapdash one of the comic series featuring primarily Harley ended on, after an otherwise good run, I am hesitant because if this sucks, after a major costume change, it will be pretty intensely lame. They have set themselves up in a way where they have to justify this costume change, and if they use the "now with more boobies!" to justify maiming Quinnzel's personality, I will simply be peeved.

[Prak]

Alma's, look at that if again. She's showing:
About two inches of each thigh
Her midriff
Her shoulders
A bit of cleavage
Her face

That's seriously it.

[PoliteNewb]

Slutty, for me at least, is defined by attitude and context, not the technicalities of clothing.

This. (and btw, I agree with your assessment of those 2 art pieces).

Some further reading and illustration on this issue (particularly, on the difference between wearing a skimpy or tight-fitting costume, and being overly sexualized by pose and context).

http://odditycollector.livejournal.com/97166.html

This link is too damn long

http://skepchick.org/2011/06/sunday-ai- ... igh-heels/

http://rosalarian.tumblr.com/post/23258 ... ed-to-kill

Many of those are ver tongue-in-cheek...but I hope they get the point across. You could probably make a decent female superhero who wears Namor's costume (exact same, bare chest and all) and NOT have it be "slutty" or overly sexualized...it's all in how you present the character.

[PoliteNewb]

Alma's, look at that if again. She's showing:
About two inches of each thigh
Her midriff
Her shoulders
A bit of cleavage
Her face

That's seriously it.

Are we...looking at the same picture?

"A bit of cleavage"? Fully 3/4 of her breasts are bare.
Her legs are bare from daisy-dukes to mid-thigh...I make that around 4-5". And are you seriously going to tell me that having the upper thigh bare is the same as, say, 4-5" of her calf under a pair of capris?

Try again: this time, tell me what IS covered on her body. Because I make it:

--Legs (in sexy thigh boots)
--Crotch
--1/4 of her boobs, and maybe 1/3 of the rest of her torso.
--Her forearms

That's it.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

A man sleeps with 30 women, and he's a Stud whose rocking it.
A woman sleeps with 30 men, she's a amoral whore.

It's a stupid double standard.
And why is anyone complaining about that outfit she's hot.

Americans are prudes.

A man with loose morals is called a rake.

A woman with loose morals is called a hoe.

[Koumei]

A slut is a woman who sleeps with anyone
A bitch is a woman who sleeps with anyone but you

There are heaps of these little ditties, and they're all just a little on the misogynistic side. Not so much that repeating them makes you a bad person, only enough that believing them makes you a bad person.

Anyway, here's a question, related to my crippling, vomit-inducing acid reflux pains this morning:
Why do hot showers and masturbation (and presumably sex) cause pain relief?

[Maxus]

Anyway, here's a question, related to my crippling, vomit-inducing acid reflux pains this morning:
Why do hot showers and masturbation (and presumably sex) cause pain relief?

Relaxation?

It isn't an ulcer, is it?

[Koumei]

It isn't an ulcer, is it?

I wish, then I could just die from it and move on. My doctor says it isn't, and my dad (who has an ulcer) agrees. From my limited knowledge, it doesn't seem to meet the criteria (bloody stool, coughing up blood, always being in pain as opposed to it coming and going).

[PoliteNewb]

Anyway, here's a question, related to my crippling, vomit-inducing acid reflux pains this morning:
Why do hot showers and masturbation (and presumably sex) cause pain relief?

Can't speak for hot showers, but orgasms produce all kinds of delightful brain chemicals, including Oxytocin.

[Prak]

Alma's, look at that if again. She's showing:
About two inches of each thigh
Her midriff
Her shoulders
A bit of cleavage
Her face

That's seriously it.

Are we...looking at the same picture?

"A bit of cleavage"? Fully 3/4 of her breasts are bare.
Her legs are bare from daisy-dukes to mid-thigh...I make that around 4-5". And are you seriously going to tell me that having the upper thigh bare is the same as, say, 4-5" of her calf under a pair of capris?

Try again: this time, tell me what IS covered on her body. Because I make it:

--Legs (in sexy thigh boots)
--Crotch
--1/4 of her boobs, and maybe 1/3 of the rest of her torso.
--Her forearms

That's it.

Ok, forgive me for posting from a phone at work and having to go from memory.

But... so, basically it's not the costume, it's the pose, personality, whatever? That makes even less fucking sense, because Harley's probably going to act very similar to how she does in AA, which people don't seem to call slutty. The pose is more psychotic killer with a nice body than slutty.

And once again, what the fuck is wrong with sexuality? No one has answered this one. So she is sexual, so she is willing to reveal some (to others a lot of) skin. So fucking what?

Maybe I'm jaded because this seems a perfectly fine way to dress to me if someone has the body for it, maybe I'm weird for not reviling my sexual nature as so many others seem to.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Why do hot showers and masturbation (and presumably sex) cause pain relief?

Can't speak about hot showers myself, I tend to feel better after cool (but not cold) showers. Having an orgasm releases endorphins into your bloodstream which act as painkillers. I know that the few times I've had an injury that really hurts, I know that I only have about a minute or so to take care of it because the endorphin rush makes me pass out.

[PoliteNewb]

But... so, basically it's not the costume, it's the pose, personality, whatever? That makes even less fucking sense, because Harley's probably going to act very similar to how she does in AA, which people don't seem to call slutty. The pose is more psychotic killer with a nice body than slutty.

And once again, what the fuck is wrong with sexuality? No one has answered this one. So she is sexual, so she is willing to reveal some (to others a lot of) skin. So fucking what?

Maybe I'm jaded because this seems a perfectly fine way to dress to me if someone has the body for it, maybe I'm weird for not reviling my sexual nature as so many others seem to.

I don't revile my (or anyone else's) sexuality. This is not even about sexuality. It's about the word "slutty", and sexism, and a double-standard.

First, you think that pose conveys "psychotic killer"? Would you pose a male character like that to convey that attitude? If not, why do you pose the female one that way? The obvious answer is "cause she's a chick and she's hot, so we have to pose her sexy".

And the problem is that that is always the answer to a lot of comic artists. Male characters are there to kick ass and save the world and have personal/character development. Females are there to do all of the above, BUT they also have to look sexy...and if it comes down to it, the first 3 can take a backseat to the last.

There's nothing wrong with female superheroes (or supervillains), or for that matter male superheroes and supervillains being sexy, or having sexual identities (although this might get problematic in the fact that you're primarily marketing comics to kids, but whatever).

There IS something wrong when you're automatically sexualizing every female in comics, because they're a good-looking chick. Especially when making them be sexy takes priority over making them tough, competent, etc. If this pic of Harley was 10% of female comic characters instead of 60-90%, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

There is a huge body of evidence for this shit, if you look for it. Hell, just google "heroes for hire rape cover".

[Ravengm]

I have a question:

When I eat red peppers, I tend to get painful headaches. What would cause that? My first thought would be an allergic reaction, but I'm not even sure that's possible.

[RobbyPants]

I have a question:

When I eat red peppers, I tend to get painful headaches. What would cause that? My first thought would be an allergic reaction, but I'm not even sure that's possible.

I know next to nothing on the subject, but according to my cousin, he thinks he's allergic to salicylates, which are in lots of things, including peppers. It took him forever to figure out where his migraines are coming from, and he thinks that's the cause.

Again, I don't really know too much. This seems to make sense given what he's told me.

[Prak]

But... so, basically it's not the costume, it's the pose, personality, whatever? That makes even less fucking sense, because Harley's probably going to act very similar to how she does in AA, which people don't seem to call slutty. The pose is more psychotic killer with a nice body than slutty.

And once again, what the fuck is wrong with sexuality? No one has answered this one. So she is sexual, so she is willing to reveal some (to others a lot of) skin. So fucking what?

Maybe I'm jaded because this seems a perfectly fine way to dress to me if someone has the body for it, maybe I'm weird for not reviling my sexual nature as so many others seem to.

I don't revile my (or anyone else's) sexuality. This is not even about sexuality. It's about the word "slutty", and sexism, and a double-standard.

First, you think that pose conveys "psychotic killer"? Would you pose a male character like that to convey that attitude? If not, why do you pose the female one that way? The obvious answer is "cause she's a chick and she's hot, so we have to pose her sexy".

If the male were a bishie and it were in his personality, yes.

And the problem is that that is always the answer to a lot of comic artists. Male characters are there to kick ass and save the world and have personal/character development. Females are there to do all of the above, BUT they also have to look sexy...and if it comes down to it, the first 3 can take a backseat to the last.

There's nothing wrong with female superheroes (or supervillains), or for that matter male superheroes and supervillains being sexy, or having sexual identities (although this might get problematic in the fact that you're primarily marketing comics to kids, but whatever).

There IS something wrong when you're automatically sexualizing every female in comics, because they're a good-looking chick. Especially when making them be sexy takes priority over making them tough, competent, etc. If this pic of Harley was 10% of female comic characters instead of 60-90%, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Hrm... yes, there may be a problem with sexualizing every female character, but..
Look, I don't actually see a huge problem with it. If anything the problem lies in the fact that only the female characters are sexualized. I think the use of sexuality by female characters fits a strong minded woman who knows what's going on. Is it deplorable that a male heavy corporation is more likely to let a woman in if she's good looking? yeah, a little bit. But it goes the same way in the other direction. Humans are sexual creatures and have a little bit of a tendency to treat attractive people like objects. Whether that's a woman executive treating a studly delivery boy as a toy, or a male executive treating a sexy woman as a porceline doll. But using that to your advantage, as most female comics characters do, and almost no male comic characters do, isn't wrong, it's smart, and if you have the body and confidence to do it, then why not? If anything the only real issue is that, yes, men pretty much rule the world with their cocks still, so most men don't need to do it, but Batman might find himself in need of it to get into themyscera. He wouldn't, because he doesn't think like that outside of Kevin Smith's writing, but he could.

There is a huge body of evidence for this shit, if you look for it. Hell, just google "heroes for hire rape cover".

The only really terrible part of that cover is that they had to make the female characters shrinking violets, instead of showing them busting out of the chains ready to raise hell. As they probably would actually do in such situation, from a casual glance at their wikis.

[Chamomile]

I've seen drunken frat boys more intimidating than Harley, there. Seriously, brief rundown of everything about her that's the very opposite of intimidating:

1) She's showing off an incredible amount of skin, especially in the parts that are most vulnerable. Granted, throwing on a shirt wouldn't actually do much to stop someone from carving her stomach out with a switchblade, but aesthetically speaking she looks more vulnerable with the skin exposed than without.

2) I cannot imagine anything remotely threatening she could do to me from that pose except stabbing downward with the knife. Dodging that attack is as easy as stepping backwards and leaves her off-balance. The hammer that she is somehow carrying isn't positioned to actually be used, and I wouldn't be surprised if she can't actually use it with just the one hand. Also, holding the knife up above her head like that exposes her armpit, which is an area you really don't want to expose in the middle of a fight. The best way to hold a knife if you planned to actually slash someone with it would be just by your ear, but that would show off a lot less skin.

3) Speaking of that pose, the way her legs are positioned and she's got a huge weight in her right hand makes her really easy to throw off-balance. Even without the weight (seriously, how is she holding that hammer?), having her legs crossed like that is a bad idea, something which registers automatically with humans because we are also bipeds.

4) That top is barely keeping her breasts contained and is probably going to pop off in the middle of a fight, which could end very badly for her. She'd seriously be better off wearing nothing at all up there, practically speaking. In terms of sexualization, though, a piece of clothing that looks like it could fall off at any moment is far more titillating than an actually nude person (and also they're probably not eager to get quite so far on the bad side of the moral guardians).

5) Going back to her pose, her arms are positioned terribly. Her back arm is pulled back, even though she's getting ready to strike with her front arm. You want to have the striking arm pulled back before you attack. Unless she's going to try and smack you with that hammer, but the front leg is on the same side as the hammer and isn't extended enough for a solid blow without throwing yourself way off-balance, especially given that hammers are heavy (though apparently not in Gotham), so it would make more sense for her to step forward while bringing the knife down. Except, again, her arm is pointed forward, giving her much less power behind that stab.

Not all of this is related to the costume, and most of them are small, but the devil is in the details and this all really adds up. Honestly, anyone who looks at Harley and is actually in the slightest bit intimidated or scared is either absurdly easy to scare or can't get past her face, the one remotely intimidating part of her.

[Prak]

Um... that's totally not a fight pose. Why are you critiquing it as such? She's flourishing, not rearing for attack.

[Chamomile]

Um... that's totally not a fight pose. Why are you critiquing it as such? She's flourishing, not rearing for attack.

You're right, it's not a fight pose. Find me promo material for a male superhero who isn't in either a fight pose or some kind of ready stance. She looks like she's posing for a porn shoot for guys who have a fetish for psychopaths. The number of things I'd have to change to make this picture purely sexualized is way smaller than the number of things I'd have to change to make it purely intimidating, frightening, or whatever.

[Prak]

Ok, so she's sexualized. I don't recall dissenting against that (though I may just be forgetting my own words). But again, my real question is, why is that an issue?

[Chamomile]

Ok, so she's sexualized. I don't recall dissenting against that (though I may just be forgetting my own words). But again, my real question is, why is that an issue?

Makes her harder to take seriously as a character, makes her appear significantly more vulnerable, less competent, less like a villain and more like the kind of Bond girl who won't survive Act III.

[violence in the media]

Ok, so she's sexualized. I don't recall dissenting against that (though I may just be forgetting my own words). But again, my real question is, why is that an issue?

Makes her harder to take seriously as a character, makes her appear significantly more vulnerable, less competent, less like a villain and more like the kind of Bond girl who won't survive Act III.

That just seems to kind of describe the whole of Batman's Rogues Gallery though, doesn't it? I mean, how many of them actually have actual, notable superpowers beyond smart, crazy, drug use, or some combination of the three? They exist in a universe that includes Superman, Green Lantern, plus a host of other cosmic characters and, in addition, are set in opposition to the goddamn Batman. I can't take any of them seriously.

[echoVanguard]

Harley Quinn usually isn't renowned for her combat prowess - like the Joker, her main superpower is her industrial-strength Crazy. From that perspective, her new costume could certainly be quite intimidating.

echo

[Kaelik]

Makes her harder to take seriously as a character, makes her appear significantly more vulnerable, less competent, less like a villain and more like the kind of Bond girl who won't survive Act III.

Maybe your problem is that you consider sexual women vulnerable and less competent, rather than that sexuality naturally conveys those aspects. There are problems with women in comics, and this costume is one of them, but not because it sexualizes Harley Quinn, who has always been sexualized to a degree, and certainly not because she doesn't seem serious. That's a pro.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

After taking a good look at the new Harley's outfit, it looks uncomfortable. That's what I'm taking from it, she must have some really punitive nipple-chafing with that top...

[Prak]

After taking a good look at the new Harley's outfit, it looks uncomfortable. That's what I'm taking from it, she must have some really punitive nipple-chafing with that top...

Card suit pasties.

Also, Joker and Harley get powers as the writer demands, sometimes they're weaklings who go down to one bat-punch, sometimes they have crazy strength and swing giant mallets with both frightening speed and proficiency. Kinda like Batman himself, really...