?

Log in

No account? Create an account

The Past | The Previous

There has been some controvery about this statue of Mary Jane, Peter Parker's (Spiderman's) girlfriend:





Now, now, before you get all caught up in something, I have something very, very important to tell you: "If you're upset she's not portraying MJ like Dunst in the movies... then you obviously have no idea who the MJ character really is. She's a supermodel, not some whiny waive thin tone deaf little girl. She's supposed to be stacked."

See, if you're offended by this, especially if, like, you're a woman, and you think this is a piece of sexist trash designed by men who have not spent much time around women--or, like, real women--and would not consider how a statue of Mary Jane bent over a washing machine like she wants to be fucked from behind, all the while flashing her pink little g-string, and breasts to anyone who comes by the window as offensive... well, you just don't understand. You lack a sense of humour. She is, after all, not bent over waiting to be fucked--or hand washing Spiderman's uniform, as some of you might have originally thought--she's finding it in the laundry. Because, you know, she's just happened to pass the laundry, and isn't at all going to do the laundry, because to suggest that the girlfriend of Spiderman is good only to do the laundry is, you know, kinda sexist. But no. She's just... passed it. On the way, perhaps, to her supermodel engagements. Perhaps where she is going to model lingerie. Certainly she's not off somewhere she'll be treated like an object and merely an appendage to the male hero that she dutifully remains faithful too, which is perhaps the power of her pink little g-string.

Yes, there's nothing wrong here, folks. If you think there is, you've obviously lost your sense of humour. You're obviously not used to seeing the funny side of yet another moment where the American comics industry creates a wank statue. Statue porn for everyone, I say.

Comments

( 62 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )
mkhobson
May. 18th, 2007 01:41 am (UTC)
I find the pearl necklace very subtextual.
benpeek
May. 18th, 2007 02:23 am (UTC)
ooh. i didn't even notice.
girliejones
May. 18th, 2007 01:43 am (UTC)
you think this is a piece of sexist trash designed by men who have not spent much time around women--or, like, real women--
Oh. I thought that's who made comics and who they were for and that's why I've never ever read one. Ever.
benpeek
May. 18th, 2007 02:24 am (UTC)
you know, there are actually really fine, no sexist comics out there. written and drawn by both men and women. this is just the bad end of it.

i quite like the medium, myself, and i do recommend you trying stuff out.
(no subject) - girliejones - May. 18th, 2007 03:47 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - benpeek - May. 18th, 2007 04:23 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fred_mouse - May. 18th, 2007 05:03 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - girliejones - May. 18th, 2007 05:47 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - strangedave - May. 19th, 2007 09:30 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - girliejones - Jun. 5th, 2007 06:58 am (UTC) - Expand
squirrel_monkey
May. 18th, 2007 01:55 am (UTC)
And her back is bent like this because of the spinal injury! Yeah, she sprained her back while being rescued. Yeah, that's it.
benpeek
May. 18th, 2007 02:25 am (UTC)
come on, everyone knows she totally saves spiderman
nihilistic_kid
May. 18th, 2007 02:01 am (UTC)
I enjoy the Indie stuff (SiP and Lenore) but without Spider-man, X-Men and other comics, they wouldn't exist.

Interesting rewrite of history there!
benpeek
May. 18th, 2007 02:23 am (UTC)
there's a lot of interesting perspectives there, really...
drjon
May. 18th, 2007 02:09 am (UTC)
Still, didn't they CGI-down Brandon Routh's over-ample package in Superman Returns?

Anyhoo, here's another defence which raises similar points to yours.

Me, I laughed at this, too: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/15/thongy_figurine_of_s.html
benpeek
May. 18th, 2007 02:22 am (UTC)
i'm not actually defending it, man. i'm poking fun at it--and the 'defence' you link.
(no subject) - drjon - May. 18th, 2007 02:38 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - benpeek - May. 18th, 2007 02:43 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - drjon - May. 18th, 2007 03:44 am (UTC) - Expand
Here from "When Fangirls Attack" - skalja - May. 18th, 2007 04:11 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Here from "When Fangirls Attack" - benpeek - May. 18th, 2007 04:16 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - strangedave - May. 19th, 2007 09:22 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - drjon - May. 19th, 2007 11:29 am (UTC) - Expand
nick_kaufmann
May. 18th, 2007 02:23 am (UTC)
tdhartist has it wrong. Mary Jane is supposed to have much bigger boobs and never wears underwear at all. What a dork!
benpeek
May. 18th, 2007 02:26 am (UTC)
oh, come on, she can't have bigger breasts. think how unrealistic that would be?
(no subject) - wyldemusick - May. 18th, 2007 02:58 am (UTC) - Expand
ironed_orchid
May. 18th, 2007 02:29 am (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying this for me. I feel so much better now.

Of course, the main problem I have with this:

"If you're upset she's not portraying MJ like Dunst in the movies... then you obviously have no idea who the MJ character really is. She's a supermodel, not some whiny waive thin tone deaf little girl. She's supposed to be stacked."

Is, HELLO, people. waif is not the opposite of supermodel. No no no no no. Have you people seen a fashion show in the last 20 years? Oh, right, of course you haven't.
benpeek
May. 18th, 2007 02:32 am (UTC)
i'm pretty sure what he meant to say was 'porn model'.
(no subject) - ironed_orchid - May. 18th, 2007 02:35 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - benpeek - May. 18th, 2007 02:37 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - wyldemusick - May. 18th, 2007 03:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - benpeek - May. 18th, 2007 04:21 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ironed_orchid - May. 19th, 2007 03:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - logansrogue - May. 19th, 2007 06:41 am (UTC) - Expand
(Anonymous)
May. 18th, 2007 02:59 am (UTC)
The really sad part is that her breasts aren't even real.

:)

---factory farmer
benpeek
May. 18th, 2007 04:21 am (UTC)
heh.
mattdoyle
May. 18th, 2007 03:59 am (UTC)
Mary Jane sucks...probably very well too ;)
benpeek
May. 18th, 2007 04:22 am (UTC)
it's a good thing i know you're gay. that explains why you're missing the point of this statue ;P
(no subject) - mattdoyle - May. 18th, 2007 04:31 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - benpeek - May. 18th, 2007 04:40 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - buymeaclue - May. 18th, 2007 11:21 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - benpeek - May. 19th, 2007 08:39 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ironed_orchid - May. 19th, 2007 03:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - benpeek - May. 19th, 2007 10:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ironed_orchid - May. 20th, 2007 04:54 am (UTC) - Expand
fengi
May. 18th, 2007 05:02 am (UTC)
Nearly perfect, although you failed to point out how the women who upset about this are obviously lacking humor they are on their period. Or gay. Or both.
benpeek
May. 18th, 2007 06:09 am (UTC)
well, you know, i just didn't want to single out gay women...
(Deleted comment)
benpeek
May. 18th, 2007 06:08 am (UTC)
we could buy one and start our own award. most mysoginstic author, perhaps?
(no subject) - strangedave - May. 19th, 2007 09:24 am (UTC) - Expand
vp19
May. 18th, 2007 06:30 am (UTC)
Yep, this is something...
...that will really boost the comics industry's appeal to women.

One wishes this statuette had been issued the same weekend "Spider-Man 3" opened. I doubt the future would have had much impact on ticket sales (perhaps at most a loss of a few hundred thousand $), but you never know.
vp19
May. 18th, 2007 06:32 am (UTC)
Re: Yep, this is something...
Oopsie -- I meant "furor," not "future." Hey, it's late here in the East.
Re: Yep, this is something... - benpeek - May. 18th, 2007 06:43 am (UTC) - Expand
shadowsandice
May. 18th, 2007 06:57 am (UTC)
Yeah, I saw it on BoingBoing and really, there isn't anything you can do but laugh at it.
benpeek
May. 18th, 2007 11:40 am (UTC)
pretty much. though since coming up with the term statue porn, i've seen glass blown statue porn as well...
buymeaclue
May. 18th, 2007 11:27 pm (UTC)
(Meanwhile, I am utterly baffled by the amount of space between the G-string and the top of her jeans. I just tried to duplicate the stance, and the result was nowhere near as, uh, dramatic.)
benpeek
May. 19th, 2007 08:41 am (UTC)
...there better be photos of this.
(no subject) - buymeaclue - May. 19th, 2007 12:28 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - benpeek - May. 19th, 2007 01:28 pm (UTC) - Expand
logansrogue
May. 19th, 2007 06:44 am (UTC)
This post made me so happy. I needed the laugh! Thank you!
benpeek
May. 19th, 2007 08:42 am (UTC)
you're welcome :)
(Anonymous)
May. 20th, 2007 02:32 am (UTC)
Your disrepectful humor
has made it necessary for me to kill you off in a fictional tie-in universe sometime in the next year.
JeffV
benpeek
May. 20th, 2007 03:41 am (UTC)
Re: Your disrepectful humor
omg! i would totally have asked for that!
( 62 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )

Profile

benpeek
benpeek
Ben Peek

Latest Month

October 2016
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow