Playpen

Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.

at 00:25 on 23-01-2012, Melissa G.
It's funny that basically the only people who claim that men are equally sexualized are those who don't want to see them sexualized, never looked for it, and would probably be uncomfortable with too much of it.


Exactly! What they think of as sexualized is not actually what those of us who are attracted to men think of as sexualized. Here's a relevant Shortpacked Comic that you may or may not have already seen that illustrates it really well.
permalink
at 18:59 on 22-01-2012, Sister Magpie

Have you seen this comics alliance article yet? It's on a similar topic, and directly talks about your point here:


I hadn't read that but thank you! It's funny that basically the only people who claim that men are equally sexualized are those who don't want to see them sexualized, never looked for it, and would probably be uncomfortable with too much of it.
permalink
at 16:25 on 22-01-2012, valse de la lune
I read a book after having been led into thinking it's some kind of nod/homage to The Left Hand of Darkness.

What I got instead was a book about furry acceptance starring something that looks like James Cameron's Na'vi. I feel so filthy.
permalink
at 01:33 on 22-01-2012, Melissa G.
Sorry, that link goes to tumbler. Here's a direct link.
permalink
at 01:32 on 22-01-2012, Melissa G.
@Sister M

Have you seen this comics alliance article yet? It's on a similar topic, and directly talks about your point here:

In comics even when the guys are shown in stages of undress they're rarely looking like that
permalink
at 03:35 on 19-01-2012, Sister Magpie
I love the "but men don't stand like that--that's not supposed to be sexy!" As if women stand like that regularly. It amazes me how rarely people seem to get that most of the poses are just about displaying the sexual characteristics. That's why, like in the pose the contortionist is describing iirc, the woman has to somehow present her breasts and her butt at the same time. That's why they're always so twisted.

I love those pictures in the link. In comics even when the guys are shown in stages of undress they're rarely looking like that, which is the actual equivalent to the female poses.
permalink
at 22:52 on 18-01-2012, Melissa G.
Whenever I post those "guy poses like girl on cover look how ridiculous it is", I always someone trying to give me the "But guys never stand like that! That's why it doesn't look natural!" So then I found this . (Click through for the rest.) A bunch of art of superhero wearing very little, standing in sexualized poses. Now lets pretend they were almost drawn this way. That's how girls feel.
permalink
at 15:30 on 18-01-2012, Robinson L
Welcome, Jules. Thanks for the links, especially the fantastic piece by the martial artist/contortionist.
permalink
at 17:10 on 17-01-2012, Shimmin
Nice. I'd be interested to see someone do a simple swap-out; exchange male and female characters throughout a comic or similar, but keep the original poses.
permalink
at 15:17 on 17-01-2012, Jules V.O.
I've seen a lot of those styles of things, most famously BleedingCool's pose comparisons, but also this critique from a contortionist. At the same time, I don't see a lot of the... inverse? obverse? Criticism by *good* example, I mean. Women Fighters in Reasonable Armor needs more company.
permalink
at 02:54 on 17-01-2012, Michal
Jim C. Hines imitates poses from various fantasy covers featuring female characters. Mostly to show how ridiculous these poses are.

"My sense is that most of these covers are supposed to convey strong, sexy heroines, but these are not poses that suggest strength. You can’t fight from these stances. I could barely even walk."
permalink
at 12:23 on 16-01-2012, Andy G
Michael Rosen has written a nice post about the apostrophe thing here.
permalink
at 10:42 on 16-01-2012, Arthur B
I guess stirring up pointless babyweeping amongst grammar pedants is an easier way to evoke interest in the brand than, oh, I don't know, getting in a more diverse range of stock, or changing up your eBook service so the products sold there aren't choked with DRM and are provided in a Kindle-readable format, or bringing back the 3 for 2 offer.
permalink
at 23:25 on 15-01-2012, Dan H
In other news, Waterstone's have dropped the apostrophe from their official banner. The Daily Mail tell us that this is destroying English.

I'm particularly confused by the line: And with them, meaning will be lost and our ability for articulation of the finer points of thought. For a self-proclaimed lover of words, you think the guy would be able to construct better sentences.
permalink
at 19:18 on 15-01-2012, valse de la lune
The guy who started in on "mental health issues" and "sweetheart, dollface" was real charming. It's a shame he uses such a generic handle; I'd love to find out if he shows up anywhere else/has a blog, so as to vitriolically name-and-shame plus avoid it.
permalink
at 17:31 on 15-01-2012, Fin
nothing better than drinking the river of tears caused by wounded fanboys. though i must say, that review was positively tame compared to some of the stuff i've been reading lately.

re: house, i'm prepared to put up with house being an arsehole, i'm just concerned that the bet plot will be used as a vehicle to validate his shitty opinions.
permalink
at 17:15 on 15-01-2012, Wardog
I'm personally just amused at the idea that there are qualifications for reviewing fantasy novels...

I have a DPhil in Applied Trope Recognition.
permalink
at 22:06 on 14-01-2012, Michal
Well, that exploded.

The above being Liz Bourke's review of Theft of Swords, wherein some folks in the comments contend that historians are not qualified to review fantasy novels. Or academics in general.

I guess I'd better change my career path...
permalink
at 18:20 on 14-01-2012, Alasdair Czyrnyj
To be honest, Finbarr, I would not get my hopes up. Insensitivity on House's is a given; this is a character whose core philosophy has always been "everybody lies." More than that, however, is the fact that House has come to bits over the past two years. Last season was dominated by a House/Cuddy romantic arc that really didn't make much sense in terms of the characters and was handled quite poorly all around. Assuming that the writers of the show could handle an issue like this with delicacy and tact is probably a losing bet.

At this point, the only thing really left to do with the show is to keep your expectations lowered, ignore the Patient of the Week, and enjoy the interactions between the main cast.
permalink
at 17:34 on 14-01-2012, Andy G
House has been pretty misanthrophic and offensive right from the start, so I doubt this is anything new.
permalink
at 16:56 on 14-01-2012, Fin
so, i haven't seen a lot of house, but from what little i know about the show i've gotten the impression that house isn't allowed to be wrong. i'm just wondering if that's an erroneous impression, because someone just directed me to this preview of an upcoming episode and i'd like to have some hope that it won't be made of too much fail.
permalink
at 16:17 on 14-01-2012, Dan H
I confess that I wouldn't have been able to swear to the correct spelling of "just des(s)erts" either.

I think it's what Language Log would call an eggcorn - the alternative spelling makes a kind of intuitive sense if you imagine dessert as being the reward you get for eating your main course, then it follows that "just desserts" would mean "the reward or punishment you deserve for your actions, be they good or bad." Also it creates some absolutely *adorable* mental images. "For your crimes, you are sentenced to EVIL PUDDING."

It's also one of those strange two-word phrases you get in English where an otherwise *totally obsolete* word ("desert" as a noun meaning "thing which is deserved") is preserved as part of a collocation. Like "woe betide".
permalink