Superheroines: Should they pose nude for Playboy?

[Altercator]

Considering that for the past recent years since Bloodrayne and the rest of the video game gals pose nude for Playboy, should superheroines in mainstream comics follow?

Would you allow (mainstream) superheroines, from Wonder Woman to Witchblade, to at least tastefully pose nude?

 

[Baby Tea]

I got a question: Who cares?

I mean honestly, they are fake cartoon/comic/video game characters.
They don't exist, so I fail to see the lure of seeing them nude.

Unless, of course, you're shamefully desperate enough to fawn over non-existent breasts (Which would totally be untouchable by you if they DID exist).

 

[D_987]

*Sigh* Of course not...

Its not a very hard question to answer - especially since someone was arrested for having Simpsons pornography.

 

[rottenbutter]

Sure why not? It's not like it matters whether or not they do. They're fictional characters. Besides, even if they don't you can still find plenty of nude pictures of them on the Internet.

 

[joystickjunki3]

I got a question: Who cares?

I mean honestly, they are fake cartoon/comic/video game characters.
They don't exist, so I fail to see the lure of seeing them nude.

Unless, of course, you're shamefully desperate enough to fawn over non-existent breasts (Which would totally be untouchable by you if they DID exist).

I, too, fail to see the interest in the matter. But I also fail to see the lure of furries.

I say that if the audience is there and they can make money w/o ripping apart the franchise, then they should be able to do so w/ the permission of the creators.

 

[Good morning blues]

I think that putting fictional characters in Playboy is pretty stupid, but then I think that putting anybody in Playboy is pretty stupid.

 

[ssgt splatter]

Oh, wow this is a tough one uhhhhhhh...YES!

 

[Altercator]

Gen 13 and Wicthblade.
Go read a few of each. It's okay, I'll wait.....


Done? Good. Now, why would you need Playboy?

I don't see they're naked. Strategically censored, maybe, but not naked.

 

[Falseprophet]

Second. This trend will create a social disconnect between fantasy and reality. While it is nice to dream or look at digital women those digital women should not take precedence over the many women that exist in your reality.

Not that I don't agree with most of what you say, but just for sake of argument: how is this different from pornography featuring live actors? They're peddling a fantasy too, and for some people it creates a similar social disconnect.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Please imagine a giant 'Who cares' in this space, and I mean giant- thirty-foot tall letters chiselled from granite and obsidian and mounted on the side of the white house.

 

[742]

holy crap, their REAL!? or did they do it in a comic or something?

or am i getting it wrong and this is a stupid question?

 

[seidlet]

I think that putting fictional characters in Playboy is pretty stupid, but then I think that putting anybody in Playboy is pretty stupid.

WHAT??? Playboy and stupid are not to be used in the same sentence....EVER!

wrong. playboy used to be the cat's meow, but it hasn't been even DECENT since the 1970's. if i was attracted to women that looked like they were made of plastic i'd get off to my old barbies and save myself the money.

that said, i'm not sure i totally understand the appeal of busty cartoons, especially with the never-ending font of busty photographs available for free on the internet, but hey, whatever floats yer boat.

 

[GothmogII]

How is this different from pornography featuring live actors?

It is different because while both promote a fantasy one is still based in reality and the other is fictional. It is that lust for another human is the theme I was aiming for. Tell me which sounds better to you. Looking at women in real life and not being interested in them physically? Or looking at women in video games and not being interested in them? While yes I'm aiming at the heterosexual audience here it still holds the point that I should be physically interested in real women in hopes to build a real relationship on both a mental and physical level. I can't do that with Mai or Chun-li, or Tifa, or Tina. I don't get to go up to my Nintendo and ask Samus if she wants to go out to lunch or dinner compared to Peachy or Labyrinth(forum members here).

Maybe so, but even watching pornography isn't 'real life' as you so claim any more than watching the latest Batman movie is. I can understand where you're coming from, however neither situation is absolutely required viewing drawn or not, nor are they worse than each other.

Second that scenario you mentioned above is pretty lame...I mean really, you do know there is porn of 99% about everything anyway? Books, movies, music, cartoons, tv shows, everything, and yet lo' and behold, the regular non porn versions are still going strong.

 

[seidlet]

How is this different from pornography featuring live actors?

While yes I'm aiming at the heterosexual audience here it still holds the point that I should be physically interested in real women in hopes to build a real relationship on both a mental and physical level. I can't do that with Mai or Chun-li, or Tifa, or Tina. I don't get to go up to my Nintendo and ask Samus if she wants to go out to lunch or dinner compared to Peachy or Labyrinth(forum members here).

but unless you have some kind of over-complicated deluded fantasy relationship with your cartoon girlfriend, porn is NOT about replacing real relationships, it's about having fast and easy orgasms.