Episode 288: Just One Word: “Plastics.”
on June 6, 2014
and modified on July 11, 2018.
The saga continues!
Thanks again to Dave Barrack who made the last six strips! I hope you all visited him over at “Grrl Power” and showed him some love on Twitter and Facebook. You have him to thank for Gyno-Star’s new slu– err, I mean, “sexually empowering” look!
As you can see, the new look comes with some special skills as well. But will it be enough to defeat The Objectifier’s powerful gaze?
Discussion (111) ¬
Hehe, I love the “enhanced” baby. I think Gyno-Star might need a hip replacement soon, though, if she’s gonna keep wrenching them around like that. (Ouch.)
(Totes hot tho, rawr!)
I agree…straight men are a mystery to me.
It’s like this: we like boobs.
Er, I mean, not all—wait, let me start over. Not to the detriment of the story?
Some of us do…Many don’t. But oh, that makes the comic SO FUNNY.
Cause men: boobs.
Cause women: shoes, babies, etc.
SO FUNNY!
If you like boobs, why don’t more of you learn how to draw them? Those balloons just look painful. They’re like giant stretched out skin blisters.
And most hentai is even worse; between the blobs and the toddler faces, it’s not remotely sexy. I think the entire point is to convince angry 12 year olds (ages 12-60) that no real women were ever associated with the design of the product.
Well Math explained it a bit here over at Grrlpower:
http://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/625
We do have various visual cues for sexual attraction, which are subject to superstimulation when presented in exaggerated form. Breasts, the “hourglass” body form, etc.
Auditory cues too, although these are less relevant to comic book media.
Male dominance cues work too on a fairly primordial level. Muscle bulk, etc. (Incidentally, I’d expect the Objectifier’s voice may have dropped by at least an octave when he transformed and gained a bit of resonance… and I’m almost surprised he didn’t sprout a Brian Blessed-esque beard, as another such cue).
Caveat: IANO social scientist.
Oh, I know all of that. . .but it still baffles me. Straight men baffle me. Always have, always will. After all, I’m on Little Sappho’s team 🙂
Which would put you in the company of some of my favourite drinking companions. Partly because I enjoy baffling people 🙂
Shouldn’t that make straight men _easier_ to understand? After all, you’re both attracted to the female form. 😉
As proven in superhero comics, straight men are not attracted to the actual female form, but a horribly twisted, exaggerated mutation of it. Not the same.
Easy answer: The audience for those mutations lack any experience with the real thing. And since most are young, they don’t understand how their reactions to visual stimuli are being manipulated.
It’s not like schools teach advanced social skills or approach the subject of masculine sexuality with any degree of maturity. The basic attitude is “Eh. They’ll either figure it out, or suffer from neurologically damaging social isolation. Guys are just perverts anyways.”
They’re certainly shamed if they’re not, since traditional purity culture depends on men initiating everything.
Same goes for non-straight males. Most men have their arousal tied to visual stimulation.
Guess we’re inherently shallow like that. But its not what turns you on, its how you act on it that counts, right?
Don’t worry, most of them perplex me too, and I’m one of them, as far as I’m aware.
If straight men mystify you, then don’t worry, that’s not quite half the population! People just GENERALLY mystify me, what with their social interactions and bizarre interests in unnecessary physical activity, so you’re doing well, Artemisia.
I’m with you. Humans confuzzle me no end.
Why can’t they be more like sea sponges? So much simpler! Plus, you can blend them without anyone getting hurt (sponges, not people).
Wait, are we slut shaming Gyno-star now? I’m confused. Also, great to see the Psylocke pose, must have been tough to choose between that and the Catwoman pose.
Hey, if we straight men can put up with the beefcake in Thor II and Captain America, we can finally get a bit of cheesecake now and again. It’s only fair.
“A bit of cheesecake now and again”? You make it sound like overexaggerated feminine attributes on display were on the decline. Perhaps the statement should be “If straight women can put up with the cheesecake in ‘Catwoman’ and (fill in the blank here), we can finally get a bit of beefcake now and again. It’s only fair.”
Would you like to buy a new sarcasm detector?
To be fair, sarcasm can be very hard to hear over the interwebs at times.
Oh dear. Were you being sarcastic, Kyrion? I couldn’t tell. 🙁 It is difficult for me to pick up on sarcasm on the Internet. Sometimes I don’t really understand when people are joking or being serious.
Poes law trikes again.
I do hope it trikes in style:
http://images.motorcycle-usa.com/PhotoGallerys/ss-trike-2.jpg
Ooh, if you are selling them, your best customer would be the Secret Service. Apparently they have problems with that too:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27711109
Beefcake? Like it’s lacking in EVERY commercial, EVERY video game, etc. Any movie with a male protagonist.
Who do they star, couch potato white knight and his team of male apologists, like appear in this comment section?
Does the term “false equivalency” mean anything to you?
I’m confused what you mean by “slut shaming?” Honestly not sure what you perceive to be slut-shaming. If you’re referring to Little Sappho’s comment, that’s bad comic book artist shaming.
I’m guessing it’s this line above:
“You have him to thank for Gyno-Star’s new slu– err, I mean, “sexually empowering” look!”
(Not that I agree, but hey).
Ohhhh, that. Do I get no credit for correcting myself though? 🙂
Yeah cuz pointing out shitty anatomy of women especially in comic books is totally sex shaming. Totally.
When doing so involves calling them sluts, yes.
Is this the same Lady Obvious that was talking to me? Your views on sexism are oddly flexible.
Not too happy with the wording but it seems strange her new costume has less fabric than a stripper outfit. Especially considering how she’s fighting and it seems logical for a nip slip. :/
That’s the joke. It’s making fun of female comic characters with similar costumes.
My apologies, I mean to say that Ms. Cohen in making fun of the artists, writers and editors who cause female comic book characters to have such costumes.
dat kick.
I just realized that Objectifyer turned his left arm cybernetic back when he made his costume… Maybe slighly better than the mishmash of superhero outfits he wore previously.
Does he still get feeling in that thing?
I think he just sheathed it in metal. Don’t ask me how it still moves normally, I’m not a comic book artist. 😛
Comagic.
I’m always disappointed when so-called heroes give up an obvious advantage. She had his back to her; why let him know that she’s in the vicinity? Why not give him a good old-fashioned sucker punch and dropkick while he’s distracted?
That would be unsportsmanlike. Or unsportswomanlike. Either way, not sporting at all.
A lot of combat is social dominance, and a victory achieved through cheating will achieve less credit than one achieved through defeating someone who can see it coming.
Also, what goes around, comes around. It sets a dangerous precedent to attack someone from behind; next thing you know, they or their allies (not that this guy has any allies, at the moment) attack you from behind.
He has as many allies as he creates?
Ah, but would a hero who resorted to such tactics still be a hero?
The question of the age!
We must all stroke out imaginary beards and ponder this issue. (Even those of us who have real beards can stroke our imaginary ones.)
Nonsense. This is a combat situation and he’s attacking random citizens–and a baby! This is no time for outdated chivalry. Gynostar needs to grab his gonads and twist until he’s singing soprano and make him reverse these changes.
Speaking of kids and a baby… Did he just turn them into superheros? Looking at the costumes it kind of looks like he did… Would be funny if the two women and the baby turned around and kicked his butt for being evil…
Nah, just into ninjas. Since there’s more than one of them around, no need to worry.
Can we use imaginary hands?
You can use imaginary hands if you want… but you’ll have to use a real beard in that case. It’s the law.
Gods forbid that Objectifier ever start reading manga, or stuff could really get twisted.
Remember, “K’yaa!” Too late.
And also his reaction in the third panel of “An Unexpected Plot Spinal Twist”. Classic manga stuff.
“straight men are a mystery to me”
I’ve seen some of the women that frequent the local gay bar and Pride parades. Right back at you Little Sappho *shudder*
Heteronormative and sexist much?
Not all lesbians look like Rachel Maddow, Lady Obvious. Some of us look like Bruce Vilanch with a uterus.
What the hell does some people being ugly have to do with being hetero-normative? Don’t just throw around random buzzwords.
Acting like lesbians should look uber fucking feminine is heteronormative ya ass. Also fucking sexist to think women should look pretty to friggin please you.
Who said anything about femininity? It’s quite possible to be ugly and clearly female. It would seem that you associate masculine features with unattractiveness.
Is this about the Bruce Vilanch reference? I just used him as an example of general unattractiveness, replace him with Rosanne Barr if it makes you feel better.
The conventionally good-looking are just another part of the kyriarchy..
That said, the face of the kyriarchy is basically George Clooney (old but not too old, rich, white, male, conventionally good-looking and doubtless well-connected)
I’ve figured it out! Straight men just really love balloons. That’s why she can bend like one, too.
yay bloons!
Now that I think about it, you’re right.
Just look at the pose of the redhead in the second panel. It looks even more bizarre from a distance. 😛
Ow, ow, ow, ow, that pose makes my back twinge…
1. How do you “dodge” gazing? His “power” should be instantaneous – speed of light stuff.
The moment he looks, wham!
2. “i can’t understand straight males” – well guess why lesbo girl.
3. Does he have an Illuminati symbol on his chest in panel 2 ? O.o
4. Shouldn’t he be able to “objefi-zap” lesbo girl into “hotness” too?
That would be the best troll *villain* ever.
1. There’s a delay between looking and blasting. He has to acquire a target before firing, or he’d just objectify everything. Basically, you can dodge a laser by dodging before it fires.
3. I KNEW IT!
Not going to bother with the rest.
If you look at how the eyebeams are diverging, clearly his eyes are unable to properly focus.
Right.
Being able to visually notice something is not the same as scrutinizing it.
Huh, is Objectifier’s vision impacted by using Objecti-vision? Do certain colors get absorbed by the clearly green ray for example.
Second, laser weapons. Not actually streams of light, but bursts of supercharged particles. It’s probably no possible to dodge the particle package any more then it’s possible to dodge a bullet, but it is possible to be somewhere else when the danger attempts to arrive.
Ergo Objectivision isn’t a garden hose of power, it’s a photon-related “bullet.”
Addendum : also he’s kinda useless as a combatant really.
He is turning people into the ideal person in fitness and strength? Wait so he made Gynostar BETTER at kicking his ass?
What a dope…
He hasn’t necessarily made her better in terms of fitness and strength, only turned her into this exaggerated version of feminine beauty. According to what he told the plump girl with the glasses, he feels that a superheroine should be hot AND capable, just not as capable as a superhero. Where is the plump girl, anyhoo?
Enhanced into the “Supper Babe” look with very flexible body parts. With built in poses too. Not a good day for Gynostar. I weep for her.
As a straight guy I have to say I never quite got the massive boobs thing. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I like ’em plenty, but the closer they get to head size the less interested I am. For me there is a Golden Mean. Of course, I am more of a face and legs guy, and to be honest, all points are negotiable, but bigger isn’t always better…
Pervert.
“I know female stats. Anything bigger than a handful, you’re risking a sprained tongue.” – “Weird Science” (1985)
#Notallmen (like head-sized boobs).
I’m so terribly glad poor Gynostar doesn’t use weapons:
http://www.superstupor.com/sust01252012.shtml
And you managed to get in that ridiculous Escher Girl pose. Kudos. Though I feel sort of dirty saying ‘kudos’ for that.
Speaking of, what do you all think of skinny Amanda Waller? Personally, I miss having a fat normal person who was able to put Batman in his place. I don’t understand why they made her skinny. But as long as she’s blowing up heads with a click of her pen then that’s still Waller I guess.
Disappointing that they changed her body type. There was no reason to do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3quTc2-GyM
GEDDAN!
Oh god, the baby…
I demand a spin-off strip, The Adventures of Muscular Baby. 🙂
Ah yes, Psylocke Style Wushu. It allows you to avoid your opponent’s attacks AND make your chiropractor obscenely wealthy.
Can you IMAGINE how well chiropractors make out in the mainstream comics universe(s)??
Most of these people are credited with having superhumanly effective physiques.
I’d guess the closest to a real answer would be finding a decathlete/power lifter with a generous endowment to ask if her breasts give her problems.
Y’know I think there is an opportunity for Objectifier to both ask an interesting question and to set himself up to be owned.
He could ask Little Sappho, “so, what ARE you into?”
Seems to me that there could be inroads between heterosexual men and homosexual women on the topic of mutual attraction to women.
I easily understand LS being appalled by exploitation and exaggeration, but is there really so little common ground on issues of taste?
Is there no “yes I once owned a Luis Royo pinup and it was totally hot and completely inappropriate” kind of sentiment?
Huh.
I guess the question is “so what do lesbians love about women?”
Well probably not what men do. We usually have our own boobs. Some of us have a uterus. It just varies from woman to woman. Bisexual/asexual/Demisexual/pansexual/polysexual it just depends on them personally.
Also can we stop sexualizing breasts? They’re not sex organs. They’re secondary sex characteristics that have one job. Feeding babies.
IIRC breasts are instinctively sought as an indicator of health; the greater the concentration of fatty tissue the healthier the prospective mother.
A desired evolutionary trait kind of deal.
Can’t say, myself. I have a penis, and it’s a fine penis, but I’m not a homosexual; the state of another’s man’s man-cannon isn’t something I bother with. Rather like you said we’re got our own dicks, what’s so special about someone else’s?
What homosexual men seem to find attractive they apparently share with hetero women. There’s no reason why straight blokes and sapphics should share common tastes, but I remain curious as to what the answer might be.
Can we not be united in a shared thrilling of the blood when a nubile spokesmodel languidly sprawls atop a new model sportscar and we both think, “a) what the hell does she have to do with cars, and b) I would spend a WEEK introducing her to the generic supreme deity of her choice” ?!
Where, where indeed, Is The Love!?
(being entirely silly)
Does a penis provide essential nutrients for a young life? Nope.
And last time I checked gay dudes aren’t always interested in them. Especially if their partner is trans.
Also last time I checked lesbians aren’t much interested in breasts. I should fucking know. I am one.
Although, curiously enough, a lot of gay men like them.
De gustibus, Lady Obvious. My sister is a lesbian, a full-figured woman, and a big fan if breasts. Personally, as a bi man, I think it’s all good.
So, when is this comic updating again? It’s been almost three weeks.
Lady. Obvious;
I hadn’t been aware that you could have informed me of what _all_ lesbians (or even some gays) think, nor how a human pregnancy has been initiated in the past two-hundred-thousand-years without those problematic man-bits prior to feats of scientific intervention.
I think arguments about comparative necessity are inherently ludicrous; what value is there in conceiving a child if one is unable to feed it?
But, point made. Thus far the answer is no. Straight men and lesbians have no compatible ground because while they both love women they share no common objects of adoration in any more specific sense.
Well, maybe. You’ve never offered input as to what _you_ like about women aside from loathing interest in breasts.
I never said I hated breasts. I don’t consider them sex organs. And honestly what you’re spouting sounds like cissexist heteronormative bullshit.
While you never said that you hated breasts, you are clearly somewhat annoyed at the concept of attraction to them.
I am a straight male, and I also find breasts to be a compelling part of a woman’s anatomy, on an instinctual level. I along with nigh on all men have nary a clue as to why this is, though Freud had some interesting (and highly disturbing) views on the subject.
I cannot see how ZAC here is being sexist in his comments, as he is merely attempting to clarify an unknown, namely what are the primary physical features a lesbian desires in a sexual partner, generally speaking and with fetishes not withstanding. Frankly, I too find myself curious.
Well let’s see. Not overly fetishized sex characteristics that’s for damn sure. And seriously? The Hell do I have to educate a grown man in why a lesbian doesn’t have the same attraction to overly fetishized sex characteristics?
We aren’t asking you why, simply what. Frankly, it’s something I’ve never thought about until now.
To me, lesbians are simply women who find other women attractive, and I’ve never thought deeper about it. My apologies if I’ve offended you in some way, if you could elaborate on particular parts of my behaviour that have offended you, I shall endevour to avoid such behaviours in the future.
You don’t have to educate anyone.
You don’t have to explain anything you think or say either.
You’ve got that right. Rock on.
However it is the case that failing to participate marks you as having nothing worthwhile to say. Defending your position from silence says literally nothing.
Since you’ve held yourself up as being typical of a lesbian you’ve decided to speak for all the rest of your sexuality.
You painted yourself into this corner. Paint your way out.
I don’t have to. I literally don’t have to educate you on my sexuality if you seem more interested in false equivalencies and pretending boobs are sex organs instead of secondary characteristics.
Also Freud’s theories have been discredited due to them being too disgusting to test.
And do you even know what the word “cissexist” even means? Because it isn’t simple sexism.
Mr Breaksit, you might look into the theories of Desmond Morris, which are considerably more interesting, and arguably far less disturbing (unless you take offense at discussions of evolutionary biology).
Problematic man-bits? Where did you get the idea that “man-bits” are problematic from Lady Obvious’ comment?
Anyway… if straight women and gay men tend to find similar things attractive in men, why don’t straight men and lesbians find similar things attractive in women?
Well, think about it, does society generally fetishise anything about men? Do… I don’t know, large handlebar moustaches cause men to be considered hot and fuckable, according to most women, based on the size of their facial hair alone, without regard to personality or intellect? Is there anything about the way in which men are sexualised which tends to baffle or insult us? If not, if men’s attractiveness is judged by mostly reasonable means, why should we expect a significant difference in the way that gay men and straight women look at men?
Sexualized in men?
Broad shoulders, defined musculature, _height_ is a constant… I’d argue social standing and the appearance of wealth are part of the equation.
Hmm. It’s odd. Besides lots of male statues with erect dicks there isn’t nearly so much sexualization of men in history that I know of. There were certainly male prostitutes through history (at least back to Rome), but whether they were sexualized or sought for their sex is unknown to me.
At a guess I think that’s because (a few) men have ruled the roost and thus didn’t need to be seen as sexy.
Ghengis Khan is the ur-example. Whether or not he was his day’s Cristiano Ronaldo didn’t matter -he conquered a significant chunk of the globe. He could win, demand or rape any woman he wanted. Hell, rape was a promised form of plunder in the Roman legions, and goes at least back as far as the Talmud as a “legitimate” battlefield spoil. Coins, trophies, rape -the life of the bronze age badass.
Problematic penises?
I was inferring from “Does a penis provide essential nutrients for a young life? Nope.” that the penis was being implied to be the inferior of the compared organs for it’s inability to dispense nurturing breastmilk. On this score I agree. However not having any dick about at all makes the procurement of infants problematic to say the least.
…right. Thank you for the history lesson, but back to the question at hand:
Does society generally fetishise anything about men?
Shoulders, height, social standing, etc., these things may influence how attractive a person is overall, but those are the mostly reasonable means I mentioned: A tall, popular man with broad shoulders will not get the same reaction, if he takes his top off, as a tall, popular woman with large breasts would, because shoulders are not fetishised.
If there is nothing fetishised about men, why would it be surprising that there is less apparent similarity between straight men & gay women’s attractions to women than there is between straight women and gay men’s attraction to men?
On the topic of penises, I know where you drew you inference from – my question is on how you managed to make it given the context of the discussion. You brought up penises as an apparent equivalent to breasts, it was pointed out that they’re not equivalent, either in function or in attractive potential in our society. I don’t see how you got the idea that they were problematic from that.
I know plenty of women, lesbian, bi, and even straight, who find female breasts attractive.
I’m hesitant to intervene in this conversation, as I enjoy a lively back-and-forth and I want everyone to feel free to express their thoughts. But I do feel compelled to point something out. Attraction to female breasts is anything but “instinctual.” You don’t have to look far to find cultures which don’t sexualize women’s breasts at all. Cultures all over the world put different emphasis on breasts as a component of sexual arousal and attractiveness in general. Over history and across cultures, there has never been a universal standard of ideal breast size and shape. And even within our own culture, which highly fetishizes and sexualizes large breasts, many straight men prefer smaller-breasted women.
The truth is that what we find sexually attractive is heavily influenced by culture/society as well as our own personal experiences.
I also take issue with the idea that gay men and straight women tend to find the same things attractive. That may appear true on the surface, but I don’t know how well it stands up to scrutiny. I mean, we can all look at Cristiano Ronaldo and be like “woah, wow,” but I’m pretty sure lesbians and straight men feel the same way if they’re being honest with themselves. Also I do not want to sex that man, even if aesthetically he’s a work of magic.
Tis the Queen herself.
Hail and well met!
Breasts: fertility icons go back to pre-Bronze age, and most are markedly “gravid.” Cultural tastes do vary indeed, but I argue there is a level of functioning at work below the whims of culture. This is not an argument from nature -ie the fallacy that if it exists in nature it’s thus “natural” and so represents a “proper” state of things, but one of evolutionary psychology. Larger breasts = a desired greater likelyhood of fertility = unf unf unf keep the species going.
To be clear this is NOT me saying “this is how it should be,” everybody needs love or so I’m told, but instead “this is how it is on a baseline level of functioning.”
There are also universally attractive features (at least as revealing by international polling), and they tend to be things like clear skin and facial symmetry. This is theorized to be as those are strong indicators of genetic health and disease resistance.
As science goes it’s pretty relative, but that’s what there is for now -at least as I know it.
Gay Men, Straight Women: mea culpa. This is a topic on which I assume much and explore little. Could just be a popular social construct with minimal grounding in reality. I don’t have any gay male friends, so I’m not about go pester some poor random schlub with implications about “can I take your perspectives as representative of your entire social niche?”
I was friends with an out bi woman in college, and we shared an appreciation of women not entirely based in the abstract, but she was kind of a sex pixie so I don’t take her as a kind of norm. Whatever else, she was certainly her own kind of person.
Who crushed on Neil Gaiman. *cackle*
Hey Jenn, if you’re reading this…*waves* I’m sorry I never got around to reading American Gods, but you should check out Empowered. =]
Oh, and yeah Cristiano Ronaldo is a handsome beast.
There.
I admitted it.
Totally jelly.
Of course, I retract my statement on the sexualisation of breasts being instinctual. One should, of course, not assume one’s experiences automatically equate to a universal truth.
Nevertheless, as I mentioned above, the subject of lesbian sexuality was not one I had deeply considered previously, but now that it has been brought up, I am rather curious about it. What attractions are born from a solely biological base, which ones develope commonly as a result of experience, how does ones personal preferences develope outside of the influence of societal norms, as opposed to within this influence? It is, I must say, a jolly interesting subject.
I hope that she’s brunette again when she finally escapes the caricature he made of her.
Well if he’s defeated and depowered I think she would return to normal along with anyone/anything else The Objectifier turned.
My guess the Objectifier’s weakness is that all his supposed changes are entirely illusionary.
Gyno Star is still a modestly constructed fit-to-fight brunette and this is just special effects and literally constructed wishful thinking.