women_n_comics: Heroes for Hire #13: Tentacle Rape is now rated for 9 year olds

Templar (

templar46_2) wrote in

women_n_comics,
@ 2007-05-25 16:04:00

Heroes for Hire #13: Tentacle Rape is now rated for 9 year olds
So... i'm kindof surprised no one's brought up the cover of August's "Heroes for Hire" yet.

This link, despite being rated by marvel as appropriate for young children, is NOT work-safe!

I'm... fairly shocked. It's not so much that it's tentacle-rape that bothers me (although, that does slightly) it's that it's on a comic that's being rated "T+" by Marvel under their own in-house ratings system... and to quote them directly:

MARVEL RATING SYSTEM

* ALL AGES
Appropriate for readers of all ages.

* T+
9+ years old Appropriate for most readers, parents are advised they may want to read before or with younger children.

* PARENTAL ADVISORY
15+ years old Similar to T+ Suggested for Teen and Up, but featuring more mature themes and/or more graphic imagery. Recommended for teen and adult readers.

* MAX: EXPLICIT CONTENT
18+ years old Most Mature Readers books will fall under the MAX Comics banner, (created specifically for mature content titles) MAX and Mature-themed titles will continue to be designed to appear distinct from mainline Marvel titles, with the "MAX: Explicit Content" label very prominently displayed on the cover. MAX titles will NOT be sold on the newsstand, and they will NOT be marketed to younger readers.

Marvel ratings serve as general guidelines for readers. In many instances, a PSR title may be appropriate for most age groups. Marvel leaves the final determination of what is appropriate content up to the consumer."

whiskey... tango... foxtrot?
HERE is a link to the newsaramablog post this morning which has a number of interesting quotes from various industry types like Tamora Pierce (writer on Marvel's White Tiger), Jennifer de Guzman from SlaveLabor Graphics and my personal favorite; Elin Winkler who's company "Radio Comix" publishes hardcore pornographic comics. :D

but what good would this story be... without the obligatory M. Night Shyamalan style twist!

*drumroll*

The cover in question... which clearly depicts strong female (and in Misty's case; minority) women in a demeaning and an overly NONconsensually sexual manner...

...was drawn by a Japanese woman.

So the 50 million dollar question remains;... does that change your perception any? (ratings problem aside)

(Post a new comment)

	And isn't Misty Knight supposed to be black?! spiralsheep 2007-05-25 11:14 pm UTC (link)
	I've been talking about this a lot but not here. THEY WHITEWASHED MISTY KNIGHT ON THE COVER OF HER OWN BOOK! Ahem, sorry about the capslock attack but it felt appropriate. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: And isn't Misty Knight supposed to be black?! divalea 2007-05-26 01:57 pm UTC (link)
	I did a remix of the cover and made Misty's skin the right color and fixed her hair. http://pics.livejournal.com/divalea/pic/0006sw70/g164 (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: And isn't Misty Knight supposed to be black?! violetfishy 2007-05-26 02:14 pm UTC (link)
	Wow, it is amazing how much difference you have made to that cover with only a few changes! (Reply to this) (Parent)

Sorry for reposting (I was looking at two covers at once)

spiralsheep
2007-05-26 02:57 pm UTC (link)

Let's see:
1. Misty has black hair - check
2. No jiz on Black Cat - check
3. Colleen's costume isn't zipped down to show her suggestive "navel" - check
4. No suggestive bleeding "cut" on Misty's lower abdomen - check

Thank you. There's only so much even you can do with that lemon of a cover, but that's a good start as far as I'm concerned.

Their expressions still bother me. Did you see that someone else tried correcting their faces? It's not as thorough a job as yours but it helped a little bit.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Sorry for reposting (I was looking at two covers at once) spiralsheep 2007-05-26 05:13 pm UTC (link)
	And... I was right the first time and wasn't looking at two different pictures and you did redraw the faces. Sorry. It's been one of those days. ::facepalm:: (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: And isn't Misty Knight supposed to be black?! templar46_2 2007-05-26 04:38 pm UTC (link)
	This rules on so many levels i can hardly stand it. They look like they're about to snap their chains and beat that brood to death with it's own wavy appendages! woo! applauds (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: And isn't Misty Knight supposed to be black?! opaleyes 2007-05-31 05:45 pm UTC (link)
	That makes such a massive difference. While I might roll my eyes at the tentacles, that fixes so many of the issues. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	And to answer your question... spiralsheep 2007-05-25 11:16 pm UTC (link)
	drawn by a Japanese woman... does that change your perception any? No. (Reply to this)

opaleyes
2007-05-25 11:24 pm UTC (link)

God. I am so sick of this.

Ok, 1) I object to it regardless, but I especially object when they try and suggest that it's ok for 9 and up! I mean c'mon! Really! It should be the Parental Advisory 15+ level at least.

I think the newsaramablog post summed it all up pretty well. These are strong characters and we're not only putting them in an abhorrent situation, but they're being put in the situation and shown as weak and helpless.

So does the artist being female change my perception? No. Not really. Frankly I've always thought of that as being even worse. I don't pardon men drawing this sort of thing just because they're men, but when it's done by a woman it feels like I'm being betrayed by my own gender.

(Reply to this)

synabetic
2007-05-25 11:36 pm UTC (link)

Here's what Joe Quesada, Editor in Chief of Marvel, had to say (from Newsarama's latest Joe Friday's):

Newsarama: How about the Heroes for Hire #13? This has caused some controversy of its own, with some people likening it to a very unsavory recurring element in some more adult-themed manga?

Joe Quesada: This one I can answer to. First, I think people are reading way too much into that cover than was ever intended. I heard terms such as “tentacle rape” being thrown around when that in no way is what’s happening, nor does it happen in the book. Those tentacles are the arms of the Brood who appears in the issue and is a major story point, the Brood have tentacles, sorry about that.

Secondly, the concept for that cover, soup to nuts came from a female artist. Thirdly, not being a deep follower of manga, I have no idea what recurring theme people are referring to or concerned with. While I appreciate the sentiment and the feelings that some may have about this, I honestly feel that there is way too much being read into this cover.

Also, HFH is a book that features two strong, lead female protagonist who kick major ass; somehow folks have forgotten to focus on that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	templar46_2 2007-05-26 02:22 am UTC (link)
	Since when... are the BROOD "slimy"? and... uh... the two strong, lead female protagonists who kick major ass... that's what bothers ME!!! gah! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2007-05-31 06:02 am UTC (link)
	Don't you remember the X-men cover where the brood and Wolverine were face to face and the brood was dripping with slime/saliva. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	templar46_2 2007-05-31 06:08 am UTC (link)
	nope. i don't read x-men, nor do i care for wolverine... but feel free to provide a link to the cover you're referring to. also: i'd appreciate it if you would log in to LJ, or if you don't have an account, sign your posts... rather than post anonymously. thanks! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	I saw that quote too... spiralsheep 2007-05-26 01:14 pm UTC (link)
	HFH is a book that features two strong, lead female protagonist who kick major ass; somehow folks have forgotten to focus on that. Yes, Mr Quesada, the cover artist and the Marvel editor clearly forgot to focus on that. Which is exactly what people have been objecting to. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	templar46_2 2007-05-27 04:33 pm UTC (link)
	Saw this on WFA, got kindof a kick out of it :D Superman parody of Joe Q's responce (Reply to this) (Parent)

	eukarya 2007-05-25 11:47 pm UTC (link)
	does that change your perception any? No. All it means is that woman and the editor in chief have their heads up their asses. And I say this as a person who doesn't have a problem with hentai, but that has to do with the audience it is aimed at, amongst other things. (Reply to this) (Thread)

synabetic
2007-05-26 12:02 am UTC (link)

To be fair, Sana Takeda was just given some ideas to do and did a few covers... This one was picked. She's just doing what is asked of her as a professional. I don't feel she is to blame...

Also, to be honest, though I have to agree that it reminds me of "tentacle rape", I've shown that cover to folks that have NO idea what hentai is or whatever and though a few felt it seemed suggestive, most of them were more put off by the attire of the characters depicted (cheesecakeish, don't you know) or they simply notcied that first. My wife noticed the "slime" and made a comment about how it looks like "something from a porn".

Do I think the cover is bad? Depends on how I look at it. Since I read a lot of manga right now it seems bad, because I look at it from that angle. I'm not overly put off by it, but I think that's because I don't read the title. I'm also not a woman, so I obviously don't feel the intense outrage that many of the women I know are feeling over this.

One thing is for certain, I know that some folks got a good laugh out of this choice for covers, as well, and Marvel has hit another publicity home run. That's like 2 in a week or so? Wow. That MJ Statue Flap was quite the hubbub and although people denounced Marvel over that too, it sold out very, very quickly.

I guess we'll see if this all hurts Marvel in the long run. The way I've seen this stuff usually play out is people cry foul and go crazy over it for about a month and then they move on or become disinterested. Until the next great controversy. Maybe this will be the time when those who are outspoken against this kinda thing can make a difference... But, as I and many other people in / near the industry privately and publically think, that's doubtful.

Here's to hoping, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

This. Is aimed. At READERS OF ALL AGES.

eukarya
2007-05-26 12:08 am UTC (link)

Content be dammed, how the fuck can anyone think that this image is "too much being read into"? Is he fucking retarded, or simply incredibly self-deluded and arrogant? Sure, not everyone knows what hentai is, but the knowledge about the genre has certain increased with the advent of the internet. Even if you never heard of tentacle rape, the cover art sure as hell still implies a lot.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: This. Is aimed. At READERS OF ALL AGES. eukarya 2007-05-26 12:14 am UTC (link)
	Not like I wish to sound harsh, or anything. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: This. Is aimed. At READERS OF ALL AGES. synabetic 2007-05-26 12:15 am UTC (link)
	No worries. :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: This. Is aimed. At READERS OF ALL AGES.

synabetic
2007-05-26 12:15 am UTC (link)

I assume you are commenting to the Joey Q interview I posted a comment or two up? :)

Yeah, being more aware of that would have helped with this whole flap thing, but then again, maybe they wanted it? Who knows. My guess is -someone- had to have seen it before it went to press, snickered, and made a comment.

As a parent, I would have more of a problem with how the women are garbed in the image. The tentacles and slime don't bother me at all (because I can't see my kids going "YAY! TENTACLE Pr0N!"... but they're my kids, so you never know... I blame the Teletubbies).

Anyhow, if I were at the shop with, say, an eleven year old Drake and he was all "Dad, check it!" and showed me that cover, I would be very put off at how the women are portrayed in skimpy outfits in suggestive poses (as well as having weird body-types, but I can just chalk that up to "art"). Then again, I would wonder why my 11 year old kid was reading Heroes For Hire... As I'm under the impression that it's more aimed at teens / young adults.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Yes, I should of included his name

eukarya
2007-05-26 12:21 am UTC (link)

It was not directed at you.

As for myself, I have a problem with female superheros (at least outside of pr0n) being protrayed in a degrading fashion. Granted, one can argue even depends on context, but still...

As I'm under the impression that it's more aimed at teens / young adults.

The "readers of all ages" bit makes it a tad bit more confusing, plus, I thought each state might have different laws in regarding marketing this kind of stuff to young people. Which could possibly create difficulties for Marvel in the future, now that I think about it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

jauncourt
2007-05-26 03:20 pm UTC (link)

Or, yeah the editor is an ass, but maybe the artist had a series of meetings like this. When it happened to me, I wasn't contracturally obligated, it was only ten bucks, and the creepy fanboy was just a creepy fanboy, not someone who could have an influence on my career (which, for me, has been almost entirely graphic design on the professional front). I could tell him to take a hike, even though I was a starving comic shop clerk.

I think the concept got nibbled at in meetings. I'd lay money on it. Also, they likely did not even tell her what the age rating of the comic was. It's probably not in her contract at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

staxxy
2007-05-26 12:53 am UTC (link)

Honestly, I am with Synabetic. The tentacles only imply tentacle porn if you are inclined to see it there, they aren't suggestive really and just as easily imply "we are going to let our pet giant squid eat you for dinner" as anything more untoward.

What bothers *me* about the image is the breast popping poses with the nearly popping out of their clothing breasts.

and I am totally down with breasts on the whole. I have them, I like them, they are generally entertaining.

This cover is inappropriate for the age of the printed intended audience.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	christhegeek 2007-05-26 12:56 am UTC (link)
	You really don't see their facial expressions combined with the poses themselves as sexually victimized? Perhaps I'm projecting, but it really does look that way to me... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	staxxy 2007-05-26 01:44 am UTC (link)
	nope. victimized, perhaps. SEXUALLY victimized, not particularly. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	ang_band 2007-05-26 07:08 am UTC (link)
	The tentacles are dripping white-tinged goo on one of the girl's breasts. Plus, the idea that a Japanese woman would draw tentacles stroking (check out Felicia) and terroriing a group of women and draw it in a manga fashion and NOT intend it to be seen as sexual is nigh-impossible. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

staxxy
2007-05-26 07:42 am UTC (link)

it looks like clear goo or water to *me*, water reflecting light, perhaps, but everywhere there is color behind the goo, the goo itself has color.

I do not see motion indicators for the stroking. the general configuration implies "flail" to me not "fondle"

To be honest, it looks to me like she got a description that included "menacing tentacles" as her spec, and she actually went out of her way to make sure the tentacles in the image did *not* resemble those you see in hentai.

The question was if I really didn't see the tentacles as sexualized, and I don't. Among other things, tentacles used in hentai are roughly penislike. And these taper to long thin points. These look, to me, about as far from penislike as you can really get and *still* be a tentacle.

that's how it looks *to me*.

the *clothing* they are wearing is a completely different issue, and is completely inappropriate for the age the comic is supposedly aimed at, in my opinion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

ang_band
2007-05-26 07:48 am UTC (link)

Symbolism is being relied on more than more direct imagery--that's the point of the whole piece. Art often does that kind of thing. Just because something oesn't LOOK like a penis doesn't mean it isn't being used in a phallic way.

More than that, even if this ISN'T a rape cover, the women are still being portrayed as "sexy" even though they are being terrorized and chained up and betraying clear levels of distress. Their pain and degradation is being portrayed as "hot" and "pretty." You can tell by the hypersexualization (Misty's pubic bone is ACTUALLY SHOWING), the soft coloring, and so forth, that is evident in the piece. Furthermore, there is no male explicitly on the cover--he's hidden, so as not to put off men who don't want to see a sexualized male being caressed by tentacles. If this wasn't to titillate the reader, why is the only man on the cover hidden from view?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

staxxy
2007-05-26 08:03 am UTC (link)

I am not saying it is not a sexuallized cover, nor, indeed, that it is not offensive.

I am saying that it doesn't look to *me* like the tentacles are meant to phallic at all. They look like they are meant to be floppy and difficult to control. While this is, indeed, true of several penises, it is not generally the impression most men like to be associated with in any way shape or form.

*you* (and several others) clearly see this as implying tentacle rape.

*I* (and several others) do not.

No one, so far as I have seen, is disputing that the women are hyper-sexualized.

Whether or not their positions are specifically degrading, I really could not comment on as I am unfamiliar with the characters and the story. If I know both of those better, I could comment on it further. my supposition is that they are in this position because it is the position all prisoners have ended up in over thousands of years because it means they can not reach any concealed weapons or means of escape - not sexual, just logical.

the lack of male character on the cover goes straight back to what i have just said about not knowing the series. until you said this, I had no idea there was a male character in the series. I still dont know if he is a major or minor character. I do know that when there are multiple reoccurring characters in a series, not all of them are on every cover.

I am not saying you are wrong about the male character's absence. I am saying *I* do not have enough experience with the series to agree or disagree with your statements on that topic.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

ang_band
2007-05-26 02:53 pm UTC (link)

I guess I'm just Freudian that way. When I first saw the tentacles on the cover, and saw the women, and the manga-esque artwork, I didn't think it couldn't be anything ELSE.

As for degrading, I think any character in this position would be degrading, personally, since they're being made to suffer for titillation reasons, not to mention Black Cat is wearing a cat bell like an animal, and is being fondled despite the fact that she is a rape survivor.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

staxxy
2007-05-26 05:39 pm UTC (link)

since they're being made to suffer for titillation reasons

If I were to take issue with everything that did this, I would never read again. Heroes suffer. It's what they do before they get out of the predicament and pound the stuffing out of the bad guys. It tends to be key to the plot.

not to mention Black Cat is wearing a cat bell like an animal, and is being fondled despite the fact that she is a rape survivor.

all which goes back to the "not knowing the series" thing. Does she always wear a bell? Is that part of her identity? Are you taking issue with the plot line, characters, or costumes in general of this particular comic instead of just the cover art(which is the only thing *I* am talking about).

As for the Freudian - sometimes a hotdog is just a convenient way to eat lunch. And sometimes a cigar is just a big lump of nicotine.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	templar46_2 2007-05-26 04:42 pm UTC (link)
	dunno if it helps, but those tentacles are the brood's "hands". also, the brood are not "slimy"... i have no idea what that goo is supposed to be other than a strong innuendo. it's interesting to me that you see it differently... i admit, first time i saw it my head shouted "Hentai porn!". (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	staxxy 2007-05-26 05:42 pm UTC (link)
	It's interesting to me that you had that reaction. You, of all the people I know. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-05-31 06:12 am UTC (link)

The japanese woman didn't invent anything. The brood have tentacles. Marvel told her that the brood would be on the cover in some way. She had no choice but to draw tentacles. Any kind of tentacle-having monster implies sliminess....squid, octopus etc. I take it that you have already aired your opinion about that old X-men cover with Kitty Pride covered in cuts and cowering on the floor and the brood about to attack....and she was underage then. Was that a rape scene? I really wonder why any of you read comics. It is all about the most perfect examples of humanity (although that is changing in some instances) dressed up in skimpy outfits. You didn't know this? I'd also like to know how many women complain that Spider-man's costume routinely gets shredded and he fights many a battle in a near-nude state. Or do you only have a problem if marvel has women flashing skin? The brood has been around 20 years at least and have been intimidating people with their faces and tentacles on covers before (see X-men 262 where 2 MEN are threatened with tentacles!). So why did you all start reading comics? It's not like they have changed much, it's always been pecs and babes. It sounds to me like you people don't like comics but are just pretending to so you can object to them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Sign. your. POSTS!

templar46_2
2007-05-31 03:59 pm UTC (link)

how is it that you seem to think that any cover with tentacles is even remotely comparable with THIS cover? also, where's your links? show me these covers your talking about! your examples are worse than worthless unless you can back them up.

how's your reading comprehension these days? are you getting anything that was said here... or do you honestly think these people are just saying "blah blah we don't like it, boo hoo"? did you miss the part about this book being marketed to *nine year old children*?

"It is all about the most perfect examples of humanity (although that is changing in some instances) dressed up in skimpy outfits. You didn't know this?"

you're wrong. please start paying attention to your surroundings. How long have you been reading comic books, kiddo? Did you grow up on "spawn"... are you one of THOSE kids?

"I'd also like to know how many women complain that Spider-man's costume routinely gets shredded and he fights many a battle in a near-nude state. Or do you only have a problem if marvel has women flashing skin?"

and now you're an idiot too.

do you honestly fail to see the difference in how men vs. women are frequently portrayed in comics? A big muscle-man with distorted features and tights is a power fantasy. It portrays what ever skinny nerd living in their mother's basement would LIKE to be...

The scantilly clad women, and this cover... is not a power-fantasy... it's a sexual fantasy. These aren't the idealized form that the men have... these are objects for those same skinny nerds living in their mother's basements to drool over and covet. Because in keeping with the "super man" power fantasy, if they WERE to be as powerful and muscular and heroic as their idles... they'd possess women like THAT.

and that's offensive.

you "get it" right? c'mon... it's not rocket science... how about your nose? you can see the nose on your own face... riiiiiight?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

oxayotl
2007-05-31 04:46 pm UTC (link)

I looked around a little bit, and I think I found the Kitty Pryde cover you're talking about. Is this it?

Yeah, she's cut up and showing a lot of leg, but come on. Can we only see slimy tentacles? Is Kitty tied up? Has the lone, clearly visible Brood Warrior started to unzip, or undress her (vs. Colleen)? Is it dripping its slime onto her breasts and neck (vs. Felicia)? You apparently have been a fan for a while, you have to be able to see this isn't really the same ballpark. Whether or not the artist "invented" anything is irrelevant. Here's X-Men 262... come on, really? You really see 0 difference here? There's nothing wrong with enjoying "perfect examples of humanity", to use your phrase, but there's also an obvious "over the top" level here, and for many people, that's offensive. If that's not you.. why are you even looking around in this community?

Which brings us to you. Templar's response is more... aggressive than mine, but there's truth to it. Posting anonymously and citing several examples without numbers or links isn't much of an argument. It's not even really an attempt at one- it more implies you just want to antogonize, and your post further down more than confirms that. How can we take you seriously? You're ruining your own credibility. If you really want to present an opposing viewpoint, put some effort into it. But in all honesty, why even be looking at this community anyway?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	christhegeek 2007-05-26 12:54 am UTC (link)
	Hmmmm. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the boobage if it weren't for the, "Zomg, we're so about to be raped' faces used in an obviously sexual way. Here's a mentality we should be encouraging in 9 yr olds. (Reply to this)

	eukarya 2007-05-26 01:17 am UTC (link)
	By the way, is it just me, or is at least one of them dripping with a gooey fluid of some kind? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	christhegeek 2007-05-26 01:22 am UTC (link)
	Its giving her a tentacally pearl necklace. Whee! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	katarik 2007-05-26 03:52 am UTC (link)
	I don't care if the artist is male, female, both, or neither. I care that the cover skeeves me right the hell out because that is nearly identical to images I could find on a google search for hentai. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2007-05-31 06:17 am UTC (link)
	Too right sister! First we get the comics, then the painters. I have even heard that some French impressionists painted NUDE WOMEN! First, we bring Marvel to their knees and then we bring our torches to the Louvre! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	pay attention! templar46_2 2007-05-31 04:02 pm UTC (link)
	what part of "nine year old children" are you failing to understand? Do i need to link dictionary entries for each word for you? NINE... YEAR... OLD... CHILDREN! additionally, grow a pair of testicles and start signing your fucking posts. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	sirriamnis 2007-05-31 04:35 pm UTC (link)
	If you don't have the cojones (or ovaries, let's be fair) to sign your posts, you don't get to make them anymore. Fucking children. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	reannon 2007-05-31 05:29 pm UTC (link)
	I write a popular culture blog for the News-Democrat as part of my job as a reporter. I just hit on this there: bellevillenewsdemocrat.typepad.com/culturegeek/2007/05/comicgeek_marve.html (Reply to this)

Face the Facts

zombiewulf
2007-07-31 08:04 pm UTC (link)

Sorry to say this, but this comic (or at least it's cover) was made for men. End of Story. So they messed up the rating, why care? If you don't want this to happen again, don't buy it and that's "THE BOTTOM LINE" (money). I on the other hand am a guy who is willing to give it a chance, mainly because of the sexy cover and everyone talking so much about it (and you can't go wrong with the Brood). -Later

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Face the Facts templar46_2 2007-07-31 08:08 pm UTC (link)
	lol BINGO! doofus. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs