Sci-Fi - Fantasy Women (Split from John Carter of Mars thread)

POSTED BY: Bytemite
UPDATED: Sunday, May 9, 2010 06:52
VIEWED: 13376
PAGE 3 of 7

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 2:43 PM

Quote:
I say, "The more obsessed we (men) are with her outside, the less we ever learn about our own inside." It's simply an inverse relationship. There's a continuum implied here. A man who is not obsessed with female appearance--a man with merely a healthy appreciation, shall we say, of feminine charms--surely has plenty of room left in his psyche for self-reflection and appreciation for the origin and nature of his own feelings. I find it very interesting that the boys out at the extreme don't tend to acknowledge the existence of an inner life. They don't even know what I'm talking about. They don't EVEN NOTICE that I am talking about it.

In the past, men were often more expressive on paper than in person. I wonder if this still applies. I also wonder if the simplicity of the past, the assumption that any woman was just a pretty face and nothing underneath, freed men somewhat for more philosophical reflections. Perhaps this was why the Greeks had more appreciation for male beauty, which can cause the same problem without the female beauty side of it.

I would like a gay man to weigh in. The gay men I've known seem to generally have very different things they look for in their romantic interests than do straight men or even straight women.

My initial observation is to suspect that lesbians still behave as straight women do in regards to what they're looking for in a relationship, but it seems I don't know enough about homosexuality to really comment.

Perhaps what you're looking at is not JUST gender role and sex obsession, perhaps it's also dumbing down of culture. Also we might be looking at class differences, classes in a society that have to cling the most to their existence tend to have cruder pursuits, and maybe for a reason, maybe because they MUST be more focused on sex and procreation to survive.

Is it also possible that focusing on the people AROUND the person is actually a form of status enhancement, which may itself be shallow and distracting from the self in any form (say, obsession about reputation or popularity, not just appearance)? Also, is narcissism a distraction from the inner self?

Quote:
Male depression is pervasive. F'rinstance, it is accepted that young men living on their own will live in squalor, wear dirty underwear, never make the bed, etc. That kind of living would be a clear indicator for depression in any woman, but somehow men are believed to be constituted differently. Men not taking basic care of themselves is part of "being a guy," being a man. Does that seem right to you?

Well, it's certainly unfortunate, if true, but is that necessarily a sign of DEPRESSION in all of the people who exhibit such behaviour? What if it's just because they don't have the patience or time to care about such things? By assuming this is a sign of depression in females, are you making a statement about things you expect females to do "naturally?"

Quote:
So a male is encouraged from the cradle to avoid things, avoid showing things, avoid BEING things, and that's crazy making, and leads to depression. Men don't cry, men don't complain, men don't smile at the wrong things, they don't move their hands the wrong way, they don't wear the wrong things, etc.

There are many such expectations on women too. It's not necessarily a unisex phenomenon.

I somewhat suspect that people being cut off from their inner lives is a ploy to increase consumerism. Replacement fulfillment.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 2:54 PM

AU: she is more covered, yet still very sexualized. You'll notice where the gaze of the camera is focused. Much like with the crying woman in the chain collar, it's NOT on her face.

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 3:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Male depression is pervasive. F'rinstance, it is accepted that young men living on their own will live in squalor, wear dirty underwear, never make the bed, etc. That kind of living would be a clear indicator for depression in any woman, but somehow men are believed to be constituted differently. Men not taking basic care of themselves is part of "being a guy," being a man. Does that seem right to you?

Well, it's certainly unfortunate, if true, but is that necessarily a sign of DEPRESSION in all of the people who exhibit such behaviour?

Of course not, it's just an indicator, okay? In and of itself, not an absolute determining factor, but it does point in that direction.

Quote:
What if it's just because they don't have the patience or time to care about such things? By assuming this is a sign of depression in females, are you making a statement about things you expect females to do "naturally?"

What? Sorry, Bytemite, but if you show me a person who is not struggling just to survive, who has a reasonable standard of living and they live in filth and do not take basic care of themselves, I'm gonna suspect them of being, oh, just a little depressed. Is that so bizarre or unreasonable? You seem to be very uncomfortable with the idea that behavior might indicate tangible things about one's state of mind or emotional/mental health. Of course, things are not always as they appear, but a lot of times if you pay close attention, they absolutely are!

Quote:
Quote:
So a male is encouraged from the cradle to avoid things, avoid showing things, avoid BEING things, and that's crazy making, and leads to depression. Men don't cry, men don't complain, men don't smile at the wrong things, they don't move their hands the wrong way, they don't wear the wrong things, etc.

There are many such expectations on women too. It's not necessarily a unisex phenomenon.

Byte, I'm not in any way trying to imply that men have it worse than women, that women don't have unfair expectations placed on them, or any such fool thing. Can you at least presume, for the sake of argument, that I don't have my head up my ass??? I am, however, talking about particular problems that ARE specific to men. If you want to talk about the troubles of growing up female in this culture, please do. Whether or not one sex has it tough, does not in itself imply that the other sex has it easy. Right?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 3:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Sex sells not because "it's what guys want," it sells because it's man's favorite method of covering up "what guys DON'T want," i.e.: to feel their loneliness, abandonment and powerlessness. Sex as anesthesia.
While there is much truth in this, a beautiful smile on Jane Seymour's lips just melted me at age 11, before I truly keyed into the idea of what sex was all about.

For me it was Diana Rigg in The Hospital. You ever see the film?

But, in terms of the discussion at hand, you're kinda movin' the goal posts there, Chachi. If Ms. Seymour were nearly naked, with metal pastied breasts thrust toward the camera, her finger nails sharp as claws, tears streaming down her face, one fist clenched in suppressed rage, you may not have such fond memories of the experience, am I right?

It may be disturbing to find that what at first glance is a sexy picture of a pretty girl is really a pretty blatant fantasy of rape and degradation, but it is what it is, right? And sure, it may be disturbing to a solid citizen such as yourself, that you didn't notice the ugly in that picture, but do you deny that it's there now that it's been pointed out? Why are some folk so resistant to even just thinking critically about the uses and meaning of such a picture? Can't we agree that our culture has some pretty deep seated problems with sexuality? That we all, to one degree or another, contribute to the problem? Homophobia, misogyny, sexual abuse, these are real problems and wide spread, yes? Is no one (besides me & Bytemite--oh, and Frem, o' course--the Usual Suspect himself) interested in examining these issues? What gives?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 3:51 PM

Quote:
What? Sorry, Bytemite, but if you show me a person who is not struggling just to survive, who has a reasonable standard of living and they live in filth and do not take basic care of themselves, I'm gonna suspect them of being, oh, just a little depressed. Is that so bizarre or unreasonable? You seem to be very uncomfortable with the idea that behavior might indicate tangible things about one's state of mind or emotional/mental health. Of course, things are not always as they appear, but a lot of times if you pay close attention, they absolutely are!

It just seems like an assumption to me. There could be MANY reasons why their living area is not neat, or why they don't do things you consider "basic taking care of themselves." Could be a money issue, could be just plain slovenly housekeeping because it bores them and they have interests with a higher priority. Maybe they're one of those packrats you see on TV, where the mess is OCD. I live in Utah and my friends in high school all had very large families in rather small homes and had lots of pets. If I were to see a filthy house, and I've seen MANY of them, my immediate conclusion is not that "whoever cleans this dump must be depressed."

It could be a sign of depression, but you seemed to be suggesting that ALL men and ALL women who keep an untidy house are depressed.

Quote:
Byte, I'm not in any way trying to imply that men have it worse than women, that women don't have unfair expectations placed on them, or any such fool thing. Can you at least presume, for the sake of argument, that I don't have my head up my ass??? I am, however, talking about particular problems that ARE specific to men. If you want to talk about the troubles of growing up female in this culture, please do. Whether or not one sex has it tough, does not in itself imply that the other sex has it easy. Right?

I wasn't presuming anything about the location of your anatomy. The male gender role is an interesting discussion, and does have something to do with the subject at hand, which is women as depicted in sci-fi - fantasy. I was only posting a reminder that real world women find gender roles bothersome as well, and sometimes these gender roles in sci-fi - fantasy are so extreme or stereotyped, especially because they portray women so negatively, that it necessitated the current discussion.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 3:55 PM

Quote:
It may be disturbing to find that what at first glance is a sexy picture of a pretty girl is really a pretty blatant fantasy of rape and degradation, but it is what it is, right? And sure, it may be disturbing to a solid citizen such as yourself, that you didn't notice the ugly in that picture, but do you deny that it's there now that it's been pointed out? Why are some folk so resistant to even just thinking critically about the uses and meaning of such a picture? Can't we agree that our culture has some pretty deep seated problems with sexuality? That we all, to one degree or another, contribute to the problem? Homophobia, misogyny, sexual abuse, these are real problems and wide spread, yes? Is no one (besides me & Bytemite--oh, and Frem, o' course--the Usual Suspect himself) interested in examining these issues? What gives?

Yay! Well said.

Of course, there's other issues in the picture too, such as the objectification of the woman, which plays INTO the degradation fantasy and the camera focus on the breast not her face or emotions. But otherwise, yes, that's why that picture bothered me so much.

You can argue that the male is just as undressed, but you will rarely EVER see the perspective of the panel/image focused on the crotch of an underdressed male hero. Sometimes on his pecs or abs, or even gluts, but I don't see just being muscular as a primarily male characteristic. If there were an extremely muscular FEMALE in a story, no one would argue that they expect girls (or men!) to drool over her musculature. Actually, female body builders are often considered unattractive by both sexes. What's the difference? The muscles generally are the same. And you could certainly argue that the roided out male is not very attractive because that's actually not very healthy. I must conclude that a man showing off muscles is not sexualization, especially IF he has more substance than his muscles (often the case in these stories, because generally the roided out male is The HERO). And the female in THIS story does not seem to have any substance other than her sexuality.

Similarly, a super-muscular near naked man means something DIFFERENT symbolically. I mentioned it before, but it calls upon the old Greek heroes, and the state of the man's undress is rarely ever shown to be embarrassing or degrading within the frame of the story. Rather, in all the pictures I've seen, he's striking power poses, dominance poses. Even striking a dominance pose OVER the submissive degraded female.

GEEZER

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 4:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I was rather troubled by some of the images posted of the female leading lady in this series. She starts out as a slave woman who wears ridiculously scandalous outfits unsuitable for a slave, then I'm told her character becomes an Amazonian warrioress who wears ridiculously scandalous outfits unsuitable for a warrior and who can't fight.

You got some info wrong.

I'm pretty sure the large picture is based on "Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar". The woman is not a slave, she is La, high priestess of the Flaming God of Opar. The collar is not a slave collar, but a badge of office. I expect that this is the point where Tarzan recovers from amnesia and rejects La's advances. She then tries to kill him but cannot bring herself to do so.

Dejah Thoris, Princess of Helium, has been trained with weapons and can fight, but as Chris noted, she - or almost any red Martian warrior - would have little chance against even a single green Martian. She has been captured by an entire tribe and is to be tortured to death for their amusement when John Carter, using his combat prowess and Earthly muscles, rescues her.

Burroughs had several female warrior characters. Tavia, in "A Fighting Man of Mars" immediately comes to mind.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 4:22 PM

Quote:
I'm pretty sure the large picture is based on "Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar". The woman is not a slave, she is La, high priestess of the Flaming God of Opar. The collar is not a slave collar, but a badge of office. I expect that this is the point where Tarzan recovers from amnesia and rejects La's advances. She then tries to kill him but cannot bring herself to do so.

Yes, I actually suspected that I was being pranked since I saw the title of that picture when I posted it, but Tarzan is somewhat fantasy, right? At least it appears these comic book serials based on the original non-fantasy fictional story seem to be.

As such, La is still a worthwhile topic for sci-fi - fantasy women. The fact that she is NOT from John Carter of Mars does not negate the complaints I have against the depiction, and her depiction is even MORE offensive since you have explained the context.

So there's absolutely no reason for her to be wearing what obviously and no doubt INTENTIONALLY looks like a slave collar other than handwaving it's her badge of office? Or the very strong implications of abuse and debasement fetish inherent in the picture?

I mean, maybe La is bad. I wouldn't know. Making a play on a guy with amnesia doesn't strike me as the most noble thing a girl can do. But whatever she did, her depiction here is still offensive. I also have to wonder if the picture implies PUNISHMENT for her being forward, and forcing her back into a submissive gender role.

Quote:
She has been captured by an entire tribe and is to be tortured to death for their amusement when John Carter, using his combat prowess and Earthly muscles, rescues her.

How convenient. Why do they even have warriors then? How did they even survive as a tribe for as long as they have? If she's been trained to use weapons, that doesn't necessarily give her more substance, or more power in her relationship, if it doesn't MATTER that she can use weapons.

GEEZER

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
As such, La is still a worthwhile topic for sci-fi - fantasy women. The fact that she is NOT from John Carter of Mars does not negate the complaints I have against the depiction, and her depiction is even MORE offensive since you have explained the context.

So there's absolutely no reason for her to be wearing what obviously and no doubt INTENTIONALLY looks like a slave collar other than handwaving it's her badge of office? Or the very strong implications of abuse and debasement fetish inherent in the picture?

I don't have the book handy, but I do recall the collar pretty specifically being mentioned as a badge of rank. Sort of like Nefertiti wore.

If you'll google images of slave collars (Talk about fetishs. Sheesh) you'll see that they look nothing like La's collar, mostly being higher on the neck, and not made of gold and studded with jewels.

I's suggest that if you see slave collars, abuse, and debasement fetishism in the image, perhaps it's your bias and not the image.

Quote:
I mean, maybe La is bad. I wouldn't know. Making a play on a guy with amnesia doesn't strike me as the most noble thing a girl can do. But whatever she did, her depiction here is still offensive. I also have to wonder if the picture implies PUNISHMENT for her being forward, and forcing her back into a submissive gender role.

Not according to the story. She throws herself on the floor because she is emotionally torn between her duty as high priestess to sacrifice Tarzan, and her inability to do so because she loves/lusts for him. Note the dagger in her right hand which she could not use. Tarzan, as far as I can recall, never mistreated a woman.

Quote:
How convenient. Why do they even have warriors then?

Because "Dejah Thoris sits in the palace protected by warriors. Nothing happens to her." doesn't make a very interesting story?

John Carter was also captured by the same green Martian tribe, and was only kept alive as a curiosity because he could jump so high due to his muscles. When he escaped he took Dejah Thoris with him, since he ("A Gentleman of Virginia", as Burroughs described him) considered it the right thing to do. Should he have left her behind?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 8:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Because "Dejah Thoris sits in the palace protected by warriors. Nothing happens to her." doesn't make a very interesting story?

The laughing Chrisisall

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE