[QUOTE]I said the previous argument sighting the instinct to procreate was "dumb" is because it's simply not the point. The debate is over whether or not it's appropriate for certain artists to introduce a particular prurient aesthetic in certain mainstream titles. The fact that men are attracted to women is not an answer. [/QUOTE]
See, this side-swipe attack on me-- the second in the last week or so-- is probably the reason that you get honest debate mixed up with "borderline trolling." You apparently don't know that if one debate peters out, you don't get to make snide references to it in public without re-engendering the debate. So it's on again, and that's on your head alone, whether anyone else here chooses to find fault with you. (No one took issue with the above quote in the last few days, so, yeah, fat chance.)
Before explaining why you've mis-characterized my position for the second time, I'll respond to your first snarky bit, where you intimated that I, and possibly anyone else you disagree with, didn't know "the difference between admiring physical beauty and sexual titillation." I can't speak for anyone else but I cited my standards, and it's not my fault if you paid no attention. The difference between my position and yours, which you've been at pains to ignore, is that I think that sexual titillation plays a role in every popular genre, and that there's no rational reason anyone should expect the superhero genre to be sacrosanct. Specific usages of titillation may be inappropriate given the venue, but T & A entertainment is not wrong just because you don't like it in the superhero genre. That's why I defended Mathew-- despite some inaccuracies in his post, cf. Phantom Lady-- when he said that "pinup art has always been in comics," and opposed Carabas' false equivalence between sexism (so called) and unambiguous racism.
You're offended by seeing Wonder Woman doing T & A? Carabas' post offended me, for reasons I've explained. At the end of the day I don't care that you're offended and you don't care that I am. That's the short verdict, here's the long one.
Without repeating the whole argument, I stand by the statement that "the elaboration of the sex-instinct into any fictional forms-- not just comic books, but every other medium capable of depicting said instinct-- is a logical development from the instinct's base biological function." That is not the same as "sighting" [sic] the "instinct to procreate" as a justification for sexploitation. I "sighted" the purpose behind the sex-instinct in order to show why it's a logical fallacy to make an easy correlation between any form of sexism-- even those forms that may be justified-- and any form of racism.
The only true part of the above quote is that for you, the only question is whether it's appropriate to have prurient material appear in mainstream books. But that only applies to you, not to the thread as a whole. Shawn Hopkins, to whom Mathew was replying, was on-topic when he simply complained that fans who like sexploitation bug him. But you're not on topic when you state that this alone is the relevant topic for the whole thread. Once Mathew raised a dissenting voice-- also on-topic-- to what the majority had posted at that time, that became a new argument, a subset of everything that bugs you about comics-fans. You can't really demonstrate to any disinterested readers that I haven't made distinctions between "the attractive" and "the titillating," so you're no longer speaking about fandom as a whole; you're just indulging in surreptitious attacks-- which is a lot closer to "trolling" than anything I've written.
BTW, to the poster who just wrote 'LIBERALS" in big letters-- I don't consider liberals to be synonymous with self-censorship. They're just one type of liberal, whom I personally consider the obverse of the ultraconservative.