PDA

View Full Version : Are The Powerpuff Girls Too Sexy For Your Kids?



Ian Jane
02-01-2014, 02:29 PM
9330

There's been some legitimate controversy brewing online about this cover to the latest issue of IDW's series.

Some say that the young girls in the series are being overtly sexualized to cater to weird male fantasies, others say that the girls are empowered in the art.

A good synopsis of all of this worth reading here (http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2014/01/empowering-vs-protecting-the-children/) if you have an interest in this type of thing.

Personally I don't see it as any 'sexier' than Barbie dolls, but then I don't have a daughter so I'm probably not coming at it the same way some might.

Mark Tolch
02-01-2014, 03:20 PM
Well, they uh, sure look DIFFERENT than the ones I've seen. I can't quite say how.....

Ian Jane
02-01-2014, 03:25 PM
It's weird, right? They're.... developed. Adult, sort of. But if you boil it down to basics, they're not being any more provocative than they are on any of the other IDW covers.

So is it the fact that they're portrayed here as more mature the issue or is it the art style or is it a lot of people projecting something onto a cover that isn't actually there?

It's an interesting discussion if nothing else.

Mark Tolch
02-01-2014, 03:35 PM
I think...and you're right, they're no different than Barbies...that the combination of the short skirts, the nylons, and the pose of, uh...Blossom, that's her name....might be sort of joining forces to present that image.

WTF do I know, though, my daughter has a friggin' nose ring.

Mark Tolch
02-01-2014, 03:37 PM
I'm also of the opinion that a lot of the charm of the powerpuff girls comes from their cartoon persona, and their status as strangely shaped round little girls who fight crime and evil monkeys.

Ian Jane
02-01-2014, 03:51 PM
It's weird how, more so with the PPG than other cartoons, shape matter.

What they're doing on this cover isn't that much different than the one in question.

9332

Mark Tolch
02-01-2014, 03:54 PM
Yeah, see, I'd be more inclined to read the one on the bottom. Those are the Powerpuff Girls.

Mark Tolch
02-01-2014, 03:54 PM
The ones on the top are too Spice Girls for my liking.

Ian Jane
02-01-2014, 03:57 PM
Understood, and I can't disagree BUT... for the sake of playing devil's advocate, the only real difference between the two illustrations is in the art style.

I guess, looking at it again, that there's some skin showing between the boots and the skirt that adds an element of 'sexy' to the first one, so there's that. I can see why some are taking issue with the piece. Personally though, my first instinct on seeing it is to say 'ha, wow, that's kinda funny and weird' and not to say 'hey now' but fuck it, it's art, you get out of it what you put into it.

Mark Tolch
02-01-2014, 04:04 PM
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying that my idea of the powerpuff girls involves the ones with no fingers or toes, and giant oversized skulls. The great thing about the cartoon is the humour that you get from three little kids fighting crime. The ones on the top look like they'd be too busy, I dunno, trying not to break a nail or something.

Could be that I'm a typical hetero guy, though, you put boobs and short skirts on stuff, and I start noticing. For example, I didn't even realize until now that Blossom was sitting on mojo jojo's head.

Anyway, I don't think there's anything WRONG with it, but I think that anyone saying, "Oh, there's nothing different about it" must be high. The Powerpuff girls are cartoons, and they look like cartoons. The ones up top look like drawings of people.

It's like taking say Mickey Mouse and actually drawing him as a real rodent with pants on. People would be like "WTF is that?" The only thing real about the Powerpuff Girls in the cartoon is their personality. The animation isn't life-like, the buildings aren't realistic, the sets are cartoons.

Ian Jane
02-01-2014, 04:17 PM
I pretty much agree. It's not wrong, but it IS different to be sure. I don't think there was an intent to sexualize things with the artwork, because if there were it could have gone a lot further and been a lot more suggestive than it is. It's not suggestive, really. It's just, as we said earlier, a more 'developed' version of the characters. If that changes things in terms of how the image is interpreted is up to the interpreter.

It's interesting you note that you didn't see Mojo Jojo there at first. I noticed it right away, and it was his presence that made me say 'yup, Powerpuff Girls' rather than 'chicks in short skirts and white boots looking for action.' For some reason his crossed eyes drew my eyes in. Weird.

Mark Tolch
02-01-2014, 04:36 PM
It's cause you have a thing for cross-eyed monkeys with exposed brains. I knew that ages ago.

Ha.

Todd Jordan
02-01-2014, 04:50 PM
Understood, and I can't disagree BUT... for the sake of playing devil's advocate, the only real difference between the two illustrations is in the art style.

That and they show skin between the skirt and the socks on the controversial cover. That might be a big element of the too sexy argument.

Dom D
02-02-2014, 02:49 AM
I don't really know who the Powerpuff Girls are or who the readership is but if that's aimed at primary schoolers I'd say it's dodgy and quite different to Barbie. Barbie might be an impossible, idealised shape but that powerpuff girl image with the short latex outfits and stay-up stockings (thank god they're not wearing suspender belts) is fetish and for me that puts it in a different class. As inappropriate as I think it is it doesn't seem to be unusual. I see a lot of cosplay stuff on my Facebook these days. The costumes seem absurdly sexed up with visible white knickers and suspender belts de riguer but then they post their inspiration images and you see that they are actually just accurately copying the cartoons. It's a very wierd trend.

Alison Jane
02-02-2014, 01:23 PM
The real Powerpuff Girls were perfect as was.

Mark Tolch
02-02-2014, 01:49 PM
Agreed. How can you go wrong with sugar, spice, and everything nice, along with a little Chemical X?

sukebanboy
02-03-2014, 08:02 AM
LOL...they have took everything GOOD about the POWERPUFF GIRLS (uniqueness, style etc) and totally BARBIED it!!

They were BADASS and FUNNY...now they are just BIMBOS~~~

This style might have worked better

http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/35500000/Powerpuff-Girls-powerpuff-girls-35520987-872-890.png

in fact, there are LOADS better ideas here if they wanted to UPDATE even..

http://www.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&global=1&q=powerpuff (http://www.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&global=1&q=powerpuff)

The Silly Swede
02-03-2014, 08:09 AM
Is this a reboot of the powerpuff franchise ? If so they could just rename them "The jizzcatcher Girls" as to not offend fans of the original.

Mark Tolch
02-03-2014, 09:41 AM
Haha, I'm sure that cover will be doing a lot of catching in the fanboy world.

sukebanboy
02-03-2014, 09:46 AM
Haha, I'm sure that cover will be doing a lot of catching in the fanboy world.

Can the live action reboot be far behind???

Alex K.
02-03-2014, 12:42 PM
I don't see the problem. Comics aren't cannon except in extremely rare cases. It's not like Cartoon Network are pushing this as the new direction for the characters or anything.

Paul L
02-03-2014, 01:45 PM
I don't really know who the Powerpuff Girls are or who the readership is but if that's aimed at primary schoolers I'd say it's dodgy and quite different to Barbie. Barbie might be an impossible, idealised shape but that powerpuff girl image with the short latex outfits and stay-up stockings (thank god they're not wearing suspender belts) is fetish and for me that puts it in a different class. As inappropriate as I think it is it doesn't seem to be unusual. I see a lot of cosplay stuff on my Facebook these days. The costumes seem absurdly sexed up with visible white knickers and suspender belts de riguer but then they post their inspiration images and you see that they are actually just accurately copying the cartoons. It's a very wierd trend.
I agree entirely with Dom.

I have a daughter (she's 7). Wouldn't let her near this, but then again I think I've instilled her with enough good sense not to be attracted to this sort of thing anyway: she thinks Barbie, which I also think is a bad role model for young girls, is 'stupid'.

Like a lot of things, I don't think this was intended to sexualise these characters - but in conforming to stereotypes and exaggerating them in order to increase market presence, it's probably what it's ended up doing. (Just like the Disney Princess thing: eg, the 'makeover' that Merida from BRAVE, who I thought was a rather good role model in that specific film, received - the thinning of the waist, the presence of makeup, the subtle 'come hither' pose and direct gaze - when she was marketed as part of the Disney Princess lineup.)

As the bank manager says in THE WILD BUNCH, 'It's not what you meant to do, it's what you did I don't like'.

Scott
02-03-2014, 10:04 PM
I like the Japanese version (but really nothing beats the original):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQOUEVUsNW0