![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why are They So Big?
Dec. 9th, 2004 05:15 pm(archived post from the WLP Web Glob, which will soon be deleted due to spammers)
(I posted the following in response to a thread on WebSnark (www.websnark.com) about how it seems like the vast majority of women in comicdom are wasp-waisted, super-stacked perfect Barbie dolls.)
Speaking as someone who writes and publishes sexually oriented comics playing upon male fantasies, here are my thoughts.
First, although by no means a majority of them, a significant number of WOMEN like comics about women with absurd proportions. Body-based fantasies and desires are by no means restricted to men, any more than the desire for comfort, cuddling and mere companionship are limited to women. I’ve acutally had a small number of women thank me for publishing WLP’s various works (and one woman, last A-Kon, who actually hugged me around the knees and worshipped me, in the nonsexual sense, for being -that- Overstreet.)
Second, one hallmark of the comics medium is exaggeration. It takes D-cup proportions in ink and paper to convey the same visual concept as might be provided by a photograph of a B-cup woman. The same sense of unreality which makes it easier for comics readers to identify with the characters and accept outlandish plots makes it difficult to accept a woman drawn normally as an object of sexual desire.
One explanation of this phenomenon I advance is the history of comics in general. In the olden days- the days of Bob Kane, Siegel & Schuster, the early Kirby & Lee collaborations, most comics focused on dense layouts with no fewer than six panels, often eight, sometimes more… half of which were filled with superfluous narration. (Hint to Golden Age fans: anyone who looks at a picture of Superman running, who -needs- a text box reading, “Superman runs to the rescue!” AND a thought balloon reading, “I’ve got to run swiftly if I’m going to save Lois!” is either six years old or mentally defective.)
Anyway. With the panels that small, and the narration that thick, there wasn’t all that much room for actual -art.- As a result, a lot of figures had to be drawn fairly small. If looking from long range, the figures were smaller still… and yet, in the case of -female- figures, the artist had to draw the figure so you could -tell- it was female from a long distance away… and then, for close-ups, the proportions had to stick.
(Again, to go back to the Golden Age: true, Lois Lane’s collar went to just under her chin, and her skirt always stayed mid-calf or below, and her blouse was never tight or soaked down to cling to her skin, but look at her and -tell- me, even back then, even given S&S’s rudimentary art skills, that she didn’t have a loverly bunch of coconuts.)
Even if you don’t buy the explanation above, you have to admit that exaggeration is a vital aspect of comicdom- from the classic shock-flop of the early days to takes to plots to, well, everything. This extends to all comic art- to the point that, in my case, breasts fetishists who are delighted to witness a C-cup in a tight shirt, who consider apple-sized breasts large and beautiful, will accept nothing less than watermelons in their -drawn- cuties, and would prefer women so busty that their boobs attract passing asteroids and hold them in orbit.
Third, there is the constant motto of all artists everywhere, but especially unpaid web comic artists: “You can’t please everyone, so please yourself.” Frank Cho, for example, makes no bones about his hormones and how they affect his artwork. Although not many -female- artists do the boobage thing, there are some- the principal artist on “Mine’s BIGGER!", starring the only female character in a non-adult comic with a bigger rack than most WLP characters, is female. Also, Kittyhawk of Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki does quite a few big-booby jokes.
Finally- and this must be remembered- NOT ALL COMICS DO THE ABSURD WOMEN THING. From my personal pull-list alone, I count the following strips which do NOT draw women in absurd proportions:
Kevin & Kell, Safe Havens, On the Fasttrack - Bill Holbrook
Mallard Fillmore - Bruce Tinsdale
Funky Winkerbean - Tom Batiuk
Popeye - Hy Eisman (King Features Synd.)
Tumbleweeds - Tom Ryan
Real Life - Greg Dean
Something Positive - Randy Milholland
Queen of Wands - Aeire
And one more: Wapsi Square, well-known for the main character’s 8-ball shirt, also shows string-bean girls, girls with braces, strong girls- girls who are neither top-heavy nor sexual in the mass-market sense.
So, if you’re upset that -some- comic artists draw absurdly proportioned women and don’t draw any other kind, I’ll go along with that, and accept that your tastes may not go for fantasy material. But if you claim that -all- comic artists draw absurdly proportioned women as sex objects, well the evidence weighs heavily against you… and I’d have to presume that the real reason you’re ticked off is that you don’t want -anyone- drawing absurdly proportioned women.
There. I’ve said my say, and tried my best to defend my silly little company. Now I’ll sit back, shut up, and wait for someone to complain about how everyone draws absurdly proportioned -male- sex objects… }:-{D
(cricket cricket)
Posted in response to comment:
Believe it or not, I hate Russ Meyer’s films; I’m not into domination and I don’t care much for violence as a sexual subject. I think of the women in WLP’s material as -empowered-; they don’t have to tear other people down (as the females in Meyer’s films almost invariably -have- to do) in order to be themselves and to be more or less in control of their own destiny.
And I have written he-men into stories; unfortunately, the first such story is only now seeing the light of day with the current Chocolate Milkmaid story, and that wasn’t even my idea originally, only my editing into script. I have no problem with sexually empowering men to fantasy-type levels; it’s just that it’s less interesting to me than empowering females, partly because I’m hetero, partly because sexually empowered females, even today, are a reversal from the common trend.
And finally, for me it’s more about the humor than about the sex. If I were writing straight romance, the scene would change just as the couple starts undoing their clothes, because there’s no good reason to show a sex scene… unless it’s silly or otherwise outrageous.
In short: strong man controlling weaker woman- not funny. Strong woman controlling weaker man- funny if handled very carefully. Weak man trying to control strong woman who doesn’t want to be controlled- comedy gold. }:-{D
(I posted the following in response to a thread on WebSnark (www.websnark.com) about how it seems like the vast majority of women in comicdom are wasp-waisted, super-stacked perfect Barbie dolls.)
Speaking as someone who writes and publishes sexually oriented comics playing upon male fantasies, here are my thoughts.
First, although by no means a majority of them, a significant number of WOMEN like comics about women with absurd proportions. Body-based fantasies and desires are by no means restricted to men, any more than the desire for comfort, cuddling and mere companionship are limited to women. I’ve acutally had a small number of women thank me for publishing WLP’s various works (and one woman, last A-Kon, who actually hugged me around the knees and worshipped me, in the nonsexual sense, for being -that- Overstreet.)
Second, one hallmark of the comics medium is exaggeration. It takes D-cup proportions in ink and paper to convey the same visual concept as might be provided by a photograph of a B-cup woman. The same sense of unreality which makes it easier for comics readers to identify with the characters and accept outlandish plots makes it difficult to accept a woman drawn normally as an object of sexual desire.
One explanation of this phenomenon I advance is the history of comics in general. In the olden days- the days of Bob Kane, Siegel & Schuster, the early Kirby & Lee collaborations, most comics focused on dense layouts with no fewer than six panels, often eight, sometimes more… half of which were filled with superfluous narration. (Hint to Golden Age fans: anyone who looks at a picture of Superman running, who -needs- a text box reading, “Superman runs to the rescue!” AND a thought balloon reading, “I’ve got to run swiftly if I’m going to save Lois!” is either six years old or mentally defective.)
Anyway. With the panels that small, and the narration that thick, there wasn’t all that much room for actual -art.- As a result, a lot of figures had to be drawn fairly small. If looking from long range, the figures were smaller still… and yet, in the case of -female- figures, the artist had to draw the figure so you could -tell- it was female from a long distance away… and then, for close-ups, the proportions had to stick.
(Again, to go back to the Golden Age: true, Lois Lane’s collar went to just under her chin, and her skirt always stayed mid-calf or below, and her blouse was never tight or soaked down to cling to her skin, but look at her and -tell- me, even back then, even given S&S’s rudimentary art skills, that she didn’t have a loverly bunch of coconuts.)
Even if you don’t buy the explanation above, you have to admit that exaggeration is a vital aspect of comicdom- from the classic shock-flop of the early days to takes to plots to, well, everything. This extends to all comic art- to the point that, in my case, breasts fetishists who are delighted to witness a C-cup in a tight shirt, who consider apple-sized breasts large and beautiful, will accept nothing less than watermelons in their -drawn- cuties, and would prefer women so busty that their boobs attract passing asteroids and hold them in orbit.
Third, there is the constant motto of all artists everywhere, but especially unpaid web comic artists: “You can’t please everyone, so please yourself.” Frank Cho, for example, makes no bones about his hormones and how they affect his artwork. Although not many -female- artists do the boobage thing, there are some- the principal artist on “Mine’s BIGGER!", starring the only female character in a non-adult comic with a bigger rack than most WLP characters, is female. Also, Kittyhawk of Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki does quite a few big-booby jokes.
Finally- and this must be remembered- NOT ALL COMICS DO THE ABSURD WOMEN THING. From my personal pull-list alone, I count the following strips which do NOT draw women in absurd proportions:
Kevin & Kell, Safe Havens, On the Fasttrack - Bill Holbrook
Mallard Fillmore - Bruce Tinsdale
Funky Winkerbean - Tom Batiuk
Popeye - Hy Eisman (King Features Synd.)
Tumbleweeds - Tom Ryan
Real Life - Greg Dean
Something Positive - Randy Milholland
Queen of Wands - Aeire
And one more: Wapsi Square, well-known for the main character’s 8-ball shirt, also shows string-bean girls, girls with braces, strong girls- girls who are neither top-heavy nor sexual in the mass-market sense.
So, if you’re upset that -some- comic artists draw absurdly proportioned women and don’t draw any other kind, I’ll go along with that, and accept that your tastes may not go for fantasy material. But if you claim that -all- comic artists draw absurdly proportioned women as sex objects, well the evidence weighs heavily against you… and I’d have to presume that the real reason you’re ticked off is that you don’t want -anyone- drawing absurdly proportioned women.
There. I’ve said my say, and tried my best to defend my silly little company. Now I’ll sit back, shut up, and wait for someone to complain about how everyone draws absurdly proportioned -male- sex objects… }:-{D
(cricket cricket)
Posted in response to comment:
Believe it or not, I hate Russ Meyer’s films; I’m not into domination and I don’t care much for violence as a sexual subject. I think of the women in WLP’s material as -empowered-; they don’t have to tear other people down (as the females in Meyer’s films almost invariably -have- to do) in order to be themselves and to be more or less in control of their own destiny.
And I have written he-men into stories; unfortunately, the first such story is only now seeing the light of day with the current Chocolate Milkmaid story, and that wasn’t even my idea originally, only my editing into script. I have no problem with sexually empowering men to fantasy-type levels; it’s just that it’s less interesting to me than empowering females, partly because I’m hetero, partly because sexually empowered females, even today, are a reversal from the common trend.
And finally, for me it’s more about the humor than about the sex. If I were writing straight romance, the scene would change just as the couple starts undoing their clothes, because there’s no good reason to show a sex scene… unless it’s silly or otherwise outrageous.
In short: strong man controlling weaker woman- not funny. Strong woman controlling weaker man- funny if handled very carefully. Weak man trying to control strong woman who doesn’t want to be controlled- comedy gold. }:-{D
