You must log in or register to comment.
As I’m sure someone else has stated that I’m I’m too lazy to read the entire contents for, the creator of Wonder Woman was an enthusiastic BDSM fan. He also created the polygraph test.
William Moulton Marston
“Marston was an outspoken feminist, polyamorist, and firm believer in the superiority of women. He described bondage and submission as a “respectable and noble practice”. Marston wrote in a weakness for Wonder Woman, which was attached to a fictional stipulation that he dubbed “Aphrodite’s Law”, that made the chaining of her “Bracelets of Submission” together by a man take away her Amazonian super strength.”
Whatcha quoting?
Wikipedia, and a dozen other sources.
Zoidberg takes notes: “Safest…”
I don’t think it’s too out-of-context. WW is just an extended bondage fantasy.
Under the original run by Marston, yes. And it wasn’t a “fantasy”, so much as it was an attempt at depicting a strong female character by routinely depicting her bond and then breaking those bonds.
Well, it was also a fantasy. Marston was into BDSM femdom (he wrote erotic novels before WW) and was in a polycule with two women.
I feel like that is a comic nerd specific context.
Or maybe we’ve just agreed, as a society, not to bring it up, like that time Batman lynched a homeless guy and laughed.
If Wonder Woman doing over-the-top BDSM qualifies, then there are some even more prime examples on /r/outofcontextcomics I see that I think I’ll submit.
I mean, going to the original run of WW is almost cheating. Those were written with the explicit intent of depicting bondage, and more importantly, Wonder Woman breaking the bonds. Marston knew exactly what he was doing and how it would look.
When did that happen?
It should be noted that Batman’s no killing rule is a later addition to the character, so early comics are cheating a bit.
I think it says a lot about the original character concept and his position as a millionaire/billionaire regardless.
I see you’re just going to deliberately leave out the context.
That wasn’t a homeless person, it was a patient at the asylum. Hugo Strange had injected him and 4 others with grown hormone that turned them into mindless, rage filled monsters, and there was no cure. It’s needlessly violent and careless but that is in no way “Batman lynching a homeless man”
I don’t know what it is with people on Lemmy trying to dishonesty reframe the legacy of that character just because he’s wealthy. It’s so petty and pointless.
1: Guess where 40’s asylums got a lot of their patients. Guess what happened to most of them if they did get released.
2: There was a cure, Batman himself made it in the comic.
3: Do you think being a victim of a medical experiment makes it better?
Nice “real context,” simp.
Huh, that is very interesting
Also fwiw, by the end of year of writing, the batman writers settled on his “no killing” rule.
Holy fuck
Oh, it’s even worse in full context.
Bullshit. The full context makes it significantly better because it reveals that isn’t just some random homeless man.
No, you just suck and think victims and the mentally ill deserve death.
deleted by creator
I just realized Wonder Woman is actually Nancy’s Aunt Fritzi. Whoa.
The guy who wrote and drew WW was a known kinkster.
When I was 6 or so I had a Wonder Woman comic, or maybe it was a record that went along with the comic, whatever. Wonder Woman was tied up and my tiny pee pee went rock hard. And here I am today.
Fuck you for posting that, no one deserving of life deserves the deep horror that this implies.
Fuck you.
Dude you ok?
Someone’s about to be sentenced to snu snu
