Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Why the Cover for Heroes for Hire #13 is Wrong

I find it hard to believe that people actually don't understand what's wrong with this cover:

Those are our Heroes (for Hire) being threatened with rape on the cover.

The selling point of this comic is that you might see one of these busty women raped. By a tentacled beast. That's just repulsive.

If you don't object to this cover because you don't recognize it as rape, you're either blind or in denial. I mean, look at it. Red-eyed voyeurs watch while grotesque phalluses strip Colleen Wing on the right and drip white slime on Black Cat's exposed cleavage on the left. The image could not be more explicitly sexual and threatening while still being displayed with Amazing Spider-Man.

Maybe you do recognize it as rape, but say, "so what? There's racks and racks of tentacle porn manga being sold. Why is this cover wrong?" Because this isn't a porn comic! It's a superhero adventure comic, and the image doesn't even match the solicitation copy. Which means it's just false advertising, playing on the worst desires of fan boys.

These aren't La Blue Girl, who exists to be tentacle raped. These are supposedly superheroes, people who protect others from rape. To show them as potential victims, to make their (potential) rape a sales feature, denies them of their capability as heroes and their existence as developed characters, and makes them into sex toys, to be leered at.

You want to know how you know it's wrong? Because a cover like this would never grace a book about men. You just wouldn't see a cover where Danny Rand hangs naked from a chain while a tentacle wipes itself off on Luke Cage's bare chest.

I mean, take a look at these Marvel covers from last year (a few covers down, where Spencer Carnage presciently forecasts Marvel's turn to hentai). They all feature heroes being threatened by tentacles or snakes, but all of the men are fighting back! Are these women fighting back? No, of course not. They're passed out or frozen in terror or cowering in fear. And it doesn't help that Black Cat, the cowering woman, was recently revealed to be a rape survivor. I mean, that's just wrong.

Look, I'm not one who says rape flat out doesn't belong in superhero stories. I actually enjoyed Identity Crisis and the "Trial of Starfox" arc in She-Hulk. But I do feel it's a very emotional issue and should be used sparingly and carefully and most importantly, should never be a sales feature unless your comic actually is porn.

49 comments:

Eudaimo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steven said...

Wow that's a scary comment.

I DON'T concede that rape is a "legitimate sexual fantasy", just that it sells a lot of hentai.

I don't concede that this image is "sexually gratifying art," and I'm a little disturbed to think that you do.

And I certainly don't concede that "there is no particular moral wrong caused by "gray-area" porn".

All of which is besides the point.

It's not that I feel it's wrong to cater to one porn audience. I think it's wrong to cater to a porn audience at all!

THIS IS NOT PORN! Marvel is, as far as I know, not in the business of producing "sexually gratifying art" and I'd be damned surprised if they announced that they were.

Marvel is in the business of selling superhero fantasies. And a cover like this is a betrayal of that fantasy, something you'd understand if a) Marvel did a similar cover with men (which they would never do and never should) or b) you didn't already think of superheroines as sex objects.

Obviously, YOU don't think of Misty Knight as a heroic character who deserves respect, but a lot of people, men and women, do. And to see her potentially violated, worse to see that potential violation used as "sexually gratifying art", is honestly sickening.

lowellboyslash said...

re: eudaimo's comment:

Sexually gratifying art, like all art, certainly should be viewed on a moral gradient, and one that weighs its potential immorality against its context. The results of that judgement have a lot to do with expectation.

If I expect to buy a home decorating magazine and find that Martha has gone with leopard print garters this spring, I'm going to be a tad surprised (and icked out). Likewise, if I buy a racy magazine like Maxim and it's full of tasteful floral arrangements, I'm going to be disappointed.

So it's not that I'd say tentacle porn is inherently wrong (I'm not saying it is or isn't -- I like it, but it's not for everyone). I would ask myself instead whether this image is appropriate to the genre it claims to belong to. Given that I expect superhero comics to emphasize heroes', er, heroic qualities, and not their sexual attributes, I'm more than a little thrown by this cover.

Sleestak said...

I'd guess the brood the tentacles belong to is dripping water because they are in a sewer. Clever.

Ami Angelwings said...

Great comment :D

If I wanted porn, I'd go out and buy porn >.> Marvel isn't in the porn business. If they are, they should just announce that they are. >.<;;

There's lots of sexual fantasies out there. LOTS. So if any of them appeared on a cover, that'd be okay too?

No! >:|

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
spleenal said...

Humm. Is a lot of this in the eye of the beholder?
In early biblical art women suffered a lot the reason behind this being that biblical was the only acceptable figurative subject matter at the time. (apart from boring old portraits of kings and noble men) The reason for all the suffering was two fold.
1 it's the bible. It's full of people getting punished for this or that.
2 If you draw it right a woman screaming in agony could be a woman screaming in Ecstasy. (artists throughout the ages have always been less than holy)

modern henti (of which I am not a fan) uses the same trick. Zoom in on the face. Is that pleasure or pain?
The art is ambiguous. You decide how you want to view it.

The girls in the cover are sexy and do have that ambiguous look on their faces. but I never saw any treat of rape. perhaps I'm being naive.

Coincidently I have just posted a big thing on the objectification of women in comics on my blog. Tell me what you think.

Steven said...

Anonymous poster: I deleted your comments because they weren't actually in response to my post, but to arguments you supposedly read somewhere else. I won't waste time responding to you if you don't have the courtesy to respond to me.

Spleenal: I'm not sure I understand your point, but you certainly don't understand mine.

This is NOT hentai. Marvel is not in the hentai industry and, as such, it doesn't matter if Colleen Wing's expression is ambiguously pleasure or pain. Either way, it would reduce these superheroes to sex objects, and therefore it would be wrong no matter what.

Eudaimo said...

A caution: I do not intend to be "scary" or "unsettling." I am NOT personally turned on by rape. I am NOT personally into porny superhero comics. However, those are matters of taste. I seek to clarify the line between things that don't appeal to me and things that are morally wrong.

Sorry if I misread you to be saying that you feel that tentacle porn "has its place." This is the comment that confused me: Why is this cover wrong?" Because this isn't a porn comic! That suggests that the cover would not be wrong if it were not a porn comic.

So my criticism was (is?) this: Your objection seems to be that the cover is to "porny," and that that is wrong b/c it's not porn. That seems a bit circular.

Your responsive comment seems to continue along the same vein: You present this idea that if Marvel is making porn they have to "come right out and say We Are Porn." That's what leaves me confused.

Part of my confusion is based on the fact that sexual fantasy exists along a gradient. When Spider-Man swings out of nowhere and catches the falling Gwen Stacy, there is, on some level, a sexual fantasy being indulged.

More, sexual fantasies do not always project the type of world we idealize. People frequently fantasize about cops, schoolgirls, priests and nuns and furry animals--all of which are morally repugnant when they really happen, and all of which can be completely harmless sexual fantasies.

There are some minor points in your response that I'd like to touch on:

Marvel is in the business of selling superhero fantasies. Your argument there seems to be more business-directed than moral. That is: it's a bad trademark management for a company to be sell Spider-Man loves Mary Jane on one hand, and authorize the "MJ does Spidey's laundry statuette" on the other. I don't disagree, but I'm not engaging talking about how Marvel could stand to manage their business better. Just whether they are being immoral.

...a cover like this is a betrayal of that fantasy This is a taste argument. It's "Marvel would present a more cohesive fictional world if they..." I don't disagree.

you'd understand if a) Marvel did a similar cover with men (which they would never do and never should) First, I'm disappointed that this and a few of your other comments engage in some light ad hominem attacks. Your point seems to be I'm blind to sex bias unless I'm forced to see it perpetrated against men. Not true. I'm *conceding* a sex bias, but saying that it is a part of sexual fantasy.

b) you didn't already think of superheroines as sex objects. Again, you're assuming that because I defend a POV, that I *have* a *POV.* I do believe that superheroines are largely intended to be sex objects. The very cover you decry proves as much. See also: almost every superheroine ever made.

Steven said...

I do believe that superheroines are largely intended to be sex objects.

And with that I give up trying to reason with you.

Eudaimo said...

You've ignored my point by point rebuttal of your points. You've ignored my criticism of your ad hominem attacks. You've ignored my examples and analogies.

If your entire response is simply "well, that's absurd," then you are probably correct that no intelligent resolution of this disagreement can come.

I will say that it's a bit confusing that you concede that superheroines are presented as "sex objects," but are unwilling to concede that they are so presented intentionally.

The only conclusion I can make out is that you while you (I think) would agree that Elektra, Fairchyld (Gen13), Spider-Woman and any female member of the X-men have proportions that would astound a supermodel and costumes that confound gravity, you attribute that to coincidence, accident or ignorance...but not intent?

Avi Green said...

Mr. Padnick, when I first read this, I'd wanted to congratulate your whole argument. However, the last paragraph here makes it hard for me to do so:

"Look, I'm not one who says rape flat out doesn't belong in superhero stories. I actually enjoyed Identity Crisis and the "Trial of Starfox" arc in She-Hulk. But I do feel it's a very emotional issue and should be used sparingly and carefully and most importantly, should never be a sales feature unless your comic actually is porn."

Let me get this straight. On the one hand, you find it dismaying if anyone doesn't comprehend that the HFH 13 cover is ludicrous porn. On the other hand, it would seem to me from this that you overlooked a most glaring sin in Identity Crisis: there was no female viewpoint, the women were virtually all ineffective and without a real voice, and the part at the end with Jean inviting Ray to hit her(!) had to be the most obscene stereotype to come down the pike in quite awhile. Put another way, the rape of Sue was but a plot device, and nothing else. How can you possibly pan the cover for that issue if you're going to excuse and legitimize a one-sided book like Identity Crisis?

Not to be a curmudgeon here, but I'm going to bring out the big guns and ask you the following question: if Sue Dibny and Jean Loring were members of a minority group, like Kendra Saunders' mother, and Dr. Light raped Sue out of a hate crime, and that too were featured solely as a plot device, would you be of a different opinion on that rancid mess? Or, what if any character in the miniseries had called Sue and Jean a "dirty white girl"? Would that be what it took to make you wonder if there's something wrong with it?

Maybe that'll give you something to think about, because I can't understand why you would take issue with the cover of HFH if you don't even find the use of rape solely as a plot device, completely devoid of any educational value, offensive. Had to get that off my chest. Something tells me even Denny O'Neil could've done a much better job if he were the writer instead of Meltzer.

Steven said...

How can you possibly pan the cover for that issue if you're going to excuse and legitimize a one-sided book like Identity Crisis?

The short answer is that I feel there is a major difference between rape as a plot point (however poorly handled) and rape as a selling point.

I don't object to reading about actions I find morally wrong; I couldn't read horror stories, crime novels, or even the daily news if I did.

I do object to rape being presented as attractive, lurid, the reason to read a story, as this cover, which is the first, last, and best advertisement for the comic inside, does.

Max Wilder said...

I do not find this cover morally offensive. Let me tell you what I see when I look at it.

1. Beautiful women in danger
2. Heroic characters who are in a traditional "cliffhanger" situation
3. A disgusting and repulsive enemy about to strike

What I do not see:

1. Imminent threat of rape

You see, I do not read tentacle porn, so my mind does not automatically go there. Furthermore, the areas where a tentacle might sexually violate them seem to be (for the moment at least) securely covered. The tentacles are threatening their upper bodies and heads.

Outside of that tiny pornographic niche, tentacles are merely flexible crushing weapons. That's the way it's been for as long as I can remember.

I certainly would prefer it to see the women fighting back rather than in a state of apparent despair, but that would depend on the story. And to me, that point is crucial in the moral sense. If the cover does not accurately portray a situation in the story (as covers are sometimes quite misleading), at that point I would probably agree with you. If the artist is warping the situation away from the actual storyline, then you can make the argument that it is apparent where he is pushing the image towards.

Now if you want to talk about the amount of skin the women are showing, that is a valid point, but this cover is nothing new in that area.

Steven said...

Max, even if you are completely unaware of the concept of tentacle hentai, and refuse to acknowledge that the combination of near nudity, bondage, phalluses dripping with white fluid, and submissive, fearful expressions suggests sexual violation, please accept that many many people do object, for reasons they have made extremely clear.

And since the elements that fans most object to are not necessary for this cover to convey the same story, why shouldn't Marvel tweak them out so as not to offend people?

Anonymous said...

I think that there's a point being missed here. Comics are drawn by normal people... people with influences from their environment. Now, can't you argue that this cover is can be both satire and commentary on the tentacle rape hentai. Does ever comic need to be serious? Are we, as readers, as easily offended that there's no room to explore multiple ideas in a cross-over storyline? This is part of World War Hulk and the artists and writers associated with this title are looking to make an entertaining and memorable piece that firs into the larger framework of Hulk, but keeps a flavor of their own ideas. From reading the solicitation I can say with confidence that my mind falls firmly on the side of parody."wouldn't it be funny if we did a hentai cover on that hulk cross-over book! That would be hilarious." say the creatives in emails to one another. It just doesn't seem that sinister. Marvel (and the other publishers) have for years used sexuality to define the times in which the characters live. In the 80's you'd see Olivia Newton John workout clothes, in the 90s it was the Marvel Swimsuit issue echoing the hey day of those sports illustrated tv specials and super models. Now manga and anime is exploding with the youth culture and I see this cover as just another instance of society being reflected in the comics medium.

Anonymous said...

"Ahoy, Cap'n Nemo - there be a giant, tentacled squid of'n our port bow, yar..."

"Oh crap - now we're all gonna get raped!!"

...sometimes a monster is just a monster...

lowellboyslash said...

...sometimes a monster is just a monster...

...and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but only when the long, phallic object is in Freud's mouth.

I agree that a lot of cover art is based on what's perceived to be popular, and Japanese comics of all kinds are certainly that. That doesn't necessarily excuse the kind of art chosen, however; just because something is imported doesn't mean it's inoffensive.

Steven said...

can't you argue that this cover is can be both satire and commentary on the tentacle rape hentai.

Sure, it's possible to argue it's satire, but I don't see anyone arguing that. If it were meant to mock hentai conventions, shouldn't the ass-kicking women of Heroes for Hire be disgusted or amused by their predicament, as they are in Lea Hernandez's remix? (I know I've linked to it twice in this thread alone, but it really demonstrates how needlessly offensive this cover is much better than I ever could)

Also, when you do a satire of rape comics with a character that's actually been raped, that shit stops being funny right there!

Marvel (and the other publishers) have for years used sexuality to define the times in which the characters live.

No, for years Marvel has used sexuality to define women. And that's the problem.

"Ahoy, Cap'n Nemo - there be a giant, tentacled squid of'n our port bow, yar..."

Heh. Ironic choice, that, since some scholars think the squid's gaping maw is a prime examples of "vagina dentata".

Ray said...

So, what was your first, instant impression upon seeing the cover? I saw voluptuous women in clingy outfits with breasts hardly covered tied together, bondage-style, obviously in agony and helpless, about to be assaulted. And that not only grossed me out, it outraged me more than if I saw it on a cover of book specifically intended for mature audiences (which I don't approve of anyway, my "you're such a prude" conscience tells me).

Anonymous said...

I think this is a cover meant to sell comics. What's so new about this?

Personally, I rather like the cover. A typical Damsel In Distress image.

I've seen much, much worse covers.

Steven said...

I think this is a cover meant to sell comics. What's so new about this?

Oh, if only someone had written a post about why it's wrong to advertise a comic with the promised rape of its protagonists...

Anonymous said...

I think you people all need to get over yourselves. It's a damn comic book! It isn't reality! Oh and did anyone happen to mention the fact that I don't hear anyone complaining about the VIOLENCE in comic books. Not that I am of course. It just seems ridiculas to me that it's OK to see the punisher shoot a guy in the head or wonder woman break someones neck, but a bunch of provacatively dressed woman with alien tenticles on them is unacceptable.

Anonymous said...

1.- I like the cover
2.- If you are seeing those stuffs you said on it, you should go to see a psychiatric
3.- Stop being an asshole and get a life, not every one must think that is somthing wrong on the picture.
4.- Be hapy.

Salute

Anonymous said...

1.- I like the cover
2.- If you are seeing those stuffs you said on it, you should go to see a psychiatric
3.- Stop being an asshole and get a life, not every one must think that is somthing wrong on the picture.
4.- Be hapy.

Salute

Themightyflip said...

I read this issue, and the issue before hand, the cover makes a lot of sense.

In #12, the heroes, both male and female are betrayed by thier team mate, and then throughtly thrashed by aliens, they dont even put up much of a fight, they are so out classed.

When we come to #13, the first few pages has them tied to a pillar like the cover, being hosed down by the aliens because they are covered in bug blood, which is confusing the smaller drone aliens into thinking they are one of them. So not only have they been betrayed, beaten, they are being humilated, wouldnt you look like they do in that cover.

As for the tentcles, the leader of the aleins is a brood queen, think the queen from the movie aliens and add tentcles, which all brood have for grabbing, climbing, crushing, stabbing etc...The brood where created in the very early 80's, they are not hentai based.

Anonymous said...

Hey i like where that comic is going, im gona have to pick one of those up :naughty:

Anonymous said...

Did you even $#$#in READ issues 1-12? this was the big buildup, and from all the World War Hulk hype we knew someone on this team was gonna die. Raped by the Brood? WTF? Are you dense? Since when does the Brood Queen rape females? Duh hey. READ the books before commenting. I sqaw the cover and though oh crap, they can't kill Misty! No! And, as it turns out they wound up killing Humbug. But oh, it's not sexist to kill the creepy bug-guy, so there's no sensational comics-bashing story in that.

This is not a rape cover. This is a crap-the-heroes-might-die-cuz-they've-been-captured-by-aliens cover.

And those weren't Brood, from what I recall, they were Meek's brothers. If they wanted to rape humanoids, they would have done so with the Imperials. No, they were only interested in killing. Get a clue, get a life, get a pull list so you actually F#@$#$@#$@ READ a comic before burning it at the stake...

Anonymous said...

1) im sorry to argue Steven, but its true, marvel does sell a lot of comics because of its female characters and because their hot. (all the characters for that matter) with their tight abs, perfect figures, gorgeous bodies. This is an example of such, as im pretty sure sales did rise because of this cover
2) it clearly had nothing to do with rape as neither this issue nor the last nor the upcoming one had anything to do with it. you need to get your head out of the gutter. great. the females are drawn with their breasts showing a bit too much. Theres a lot more than that happening in other marvel comic books, and aside from that, the female characters are always wearing skin-tight clothing

Anonymous said...

(above)
did you know that the damn thing was drawn by a freaking woman?
god, whats the world coming to?
women drawing good-looking women with small touches of skin and blood and "white liquid" from a "phallus" (a tentacle just isnt a phallus. im not sure what yours looks like)

LL said...

Whether the cover was drawn by a woman or not is completely irrelevant. It is still sexualizing violence against women.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who doesn't see the rape like scene here is either amazingly naive, playing ignorant in purpose (ie jerk) or just plain idiot... and I don't even object to the cover, I like it, but it is going over board in the genre where it's presented, these are for kids for crying out loud. The dripping spunk is just disgusting in this context.

Anonymous said...

I can see how it is offensive. If you know the history of hentai comics, and the over-sexualization of women in comics, then busty sexy women tied up with tentacles slithering near the bodies...it's not hard to guess what's being implied.

It would be less controversial if women weren't always put in slutwear (powergirl), with g-string unitards up their asses (Psylocke) while the guys aren't getting the same degraded treatment (hint: they're drawn missing an important part of male anatomy).

But comics have always been to function as an outlet for subversive sexual fantasies.

Anonymous said...

One more thing to add: I mean c'mon. there's slime dripping all over one of the girls' implants. You've got to be an underaged teen if this stuff is purely innocent.

Anonymous said...

As a long time fan of both American and Japanese comics I can definitely say 2 things:

1: This cover is full of innuendo and outright sexual suggestion. There is no denying that the artists were catering to the sexual deviances of both its target audience and of those who do not read this book.

2: This cover completely Rocks!

I mean come-on! If the cover had the same characters in it but had the tentacles tearing the heroine’s limb from limb no one would be complaining! It’s because the cover is sexually charged that all these people are up in arms.

Most of you are forgetting one fundamental thing about comics, they are fictional, and they are not meant to be taken seriously. Lighten up folks, if there are people out there weak-minded enough to have this cover lessen their view of real women as a whole or have their suspension-of-disbelief shattered because this cover shows them as “potential victims” they should not be reading comics, watching movies or playing games, because they are too mentally weak to distinguish the difference between fantasy and reality.

Anyone who agrees that this cover is horrible because it shows “… them as potential victims, to make their (potential) rape a sales feature, denies them of their capability as heroes and their existence as developed characters, and makes them into sex toys, to be leered at” is a hypocrite!

Gimme a break! Since when were Heroines NOT sex toys to be leered at?

They have ALWAYS been suggestive from their clothes to their poses to their pouty lips… that’s what they are for!

Case in point… She-hulk… why doesn’t she look more like Andre the Giant and less like Marissa Miller? The answer, because the suggestive and sexually charged physique of She-hulk sells more comics than if she looked like the hulk.

I like my comic women lean and suggestive, just like I like my comic men strong and confidant.

They are just comics… lighten up!

Pete said...

Try as I might, I just can't... seem... to work up... any... outrage at this trivial, tongue-in-cheek spoof of Japanese-style heroines-in-bondage cover art. Anyone who claims they are shocked, shocked to see some softcore sexuality in a comic book (the domain of the skintight catsuit and the needle-thin waistline) is a hypocrite. It's probably not a good thing that socially awkward kids get their ideas of women from this stuff, but that goes for TV, Hollywood, magazines, the internet, novels, and quite a bit of Renaissance artwork as well.

Kostya said...

This kind of thing has been going on for longer than you've been alive:

http://bcotd.com/crypt.html

Let's not pretend that this is some kind of pressing crisis, please.

Ryan said...

Who the hell cares about a cover like that, I mean its obvious there not going to do that and it's stupid to just focus on something like this when there are worst things n the world, and I'm not talking about Violence in video games or something stupid like that. its their comic they can do what they want to the damn thing.

Ryan said...

Who the hell cares about a cover like that, I mean its obvious there not going to do that and it's stupid to just focus on something like this when there are worst things n the world, and I'm not talking about Violence in video games or something stupid like that. its their comic they can do what they want to the damn thing.

Jason Caedmon said...

Just because something has tentacles in it does not mean that it is tentacle rape, and a man, Shang Chi, is tied up in this picture as well (to the left).

However, the fact that Colleen's outfit has been unzipped by God-knows-who makes it disturbing.

I think that's the worst part of the picture; Colleen's costume is open. I honestly don't know how that would happen without someone intentionally pulling her zipper down, and I doubt that she did it herself.

Even if the picture does not allude to rape, the implication that someone had tried to undress her is suspicious.

Xun said...

I realize that this is rather late in the discussion, but I feel like making a few points.

First off, the whole notion that the things dangling down from the grating in the top right and left portions of the picture are phallic is rather silly. Unless anatomy has changed a lot since I last checked, fingers are not featured heavily in most males except on their hands.

Secondly, I'm confused about how you figured that the tentacles were doing the unzipping. For one thing, none of the tentacles are near the zipper in question. For another, tentacles can't preform fine motor activities. Without the ability to grip small objects, I doubt that they could be used to unzip the costume.

While we're at it, Marvel, actually make that all comic companies, most movie companies and, oh why not, most businesses, have been in the business of portraying women as sex objects for the purpose of making money. They don't have to agree with the concept to use it to sell a comic or product. I mean really, costumes, as another poster pointed out, generally leave little to the imagination. Funnily enough, the bodies they fail to cover are clearly derived from imagination.

And lastly, as someone pointed out, there isn't much here to suggest that rape is intended. Tentacles do not instantly translate to rape. More often than not, comics with tentacled monsters have the monsters try to kill people with their tentacles. If one looks for it, one can find offensive material anywhere.

Anonymous said...

Ummm.... who said that the tentacles unzipped her?

Steven said...

So, I'm not responding to anything in particular, since I said most of what I wanted to say in the original post, but I do find it funny that two YEARS after I originally wrote this, I still get comments telling me that I'm too worked up about this cover.

That said, comments are still open. See you in 2010.

Jonathan said...

Max is right, Steven. Sometimes a tentacle is just a tentacle. You seem to be the only one making the connection between tentacles and porn. Maybe you should steer clear of the aquarium; I hear it gets pretty racy there with the nude squids.

But yeah, the clothes and bodies in comics are ridiculous.

Ron said...

Wow I'm five years late but damn dude try not to go on a moral crusade here, its simply a matter of values dissonance between America and Japan. Besides she (yes the artist is indeed a woman and Japanese), probably had guidelines to draw it as it was or similar. And on an even more disturbing scale there is such a thing as Death by Rape, theirs no reason, by your logic, that they have to be separate. And it would even serve a purpose of causing most (sadly not all) fans to absolutely hate the enemy. But I digress, I'm five years late so the likelihood that anyone will read this is zero much less reply to it.

Anonymous said...

To be fair there's a dude tied up too so I guess he's a sex object as well...lets all fight about how its wrong for dudes to be shown as potential rape victims too!

Felicia said...

Yeah. He's not fighting back either. Poor guy. He's so defenseless...and everyone is so focused on the girls he's being completely overlooked. :'[

Anonymous said...

I think the one in the white likes it. And the one in the red looks like she's waiting for the right time time to kick some ass.