Statue of Wonder Woman is missing something. Hmm...

I've seen this statue of Wonder Woman before, and I've considered getting it for the boss, except the full-sized one is so danged expensive! But if I did get it for him, it would have to be the full-sized one, because the smaller one does not do this work justice. It's a rather stunning display of female musculature that demonstrates how female muscle can be both toned and yet still feminine. I also wonder how that top stays on despite the large and very round breasts almost bulging out of it!

I know some feminist friends of mine will take offense to this statue, and in truth, they do have a point in that it shows that female superheroes not only have to be able to do what the male ones do, but they also have to look hot doing it. I've responded that the men have to look pretty hot, too, wearing those tight outfits that hide very little. And what's that wearing-the-underwear-on-the-outside thing they got going on there? Sending a subtle message, you think? LOL

Anyway, as I looked at that picture of the Wonder Woman statue, I got to thinking that something was missing. Now, what could it be? Hmm...

Oh, I know! This!

Kick-Ass: Starting a new, not necessarily good, trend in movies?

Firstoff, I have not seen the movie Kick-Ass (which, apparently, did not do well this weekend). Mind you, this might be one of those times in which I go see a superhero movie while it is still in the theaters. You'll know if I do indeed end up doing that. :-D

However, I do have to wonder something, and it's related to the title of this blog entry above. Is Kick-Ass starting a new, and not exactly good, trend in presenting a pre-adolescent child delivering bloody violence, and then receiving bloody violence? It's the "receiving bloody violence" parts in particular that bothers me - in essence, it seems to be making child abuse into entertainment. Child abuse is never entertaining, and I wonder if the movie industry really wants to go down that road.

If, as Bill Clinton recently said, "word really matter", then does that apply to movies that seem almost glorify abuse to a child? I know the likely response: "It's just a movie!", and it's why I will be trying to give the movie a chance by going to see it in the theater, but I was a bit disturbed by some of the reviews that seem to make a big deal out of the child character, named "Hit Girl", saying "the C word" and in her bloody beatings of the bad guys. It sounded like that was the main reason to go see the movie.

Movie trends tend to start this way, with one movie trying to take movie-making "in a new direction", and if enough intellectual types slobber all over it enough as being "ground-breaking", then other movie makers will follow suit by making a movie that "pushes the envelope" some more. Well, now we come to this, in which a child is bloodied by an adult for the sake of entertainment. So my question is, do we really want to "go there"?

Regular blog readers know that I make no secret of my political conservatism, and no doubt because I just said that, new readers will say that I am being "uptight" and "advocating censorship" over a movie's rights to free expression, even though I said nothing of the kind. But rather than shoot the person who is just making an observation, I instead invite those of you who have actually seen the movie to tell me - with as must honesty as possible - if you truly believe that this movie does not try to make child abuse into movie entertainment.

Remember, I'm going to try to see this movie myself so that I can make my own determination of whether the violence against a child is justified for the story, or if it's a movie trying to take movie-making into a new, and not necessarily good, direction.

Just so that this is covered, if you have not seen the movie and don't want what's in the movie spoiled for you, then don't read any possible comments below! You have been warned!

Special surprise coming next week!

Okay, it was a slow week for me blogwise. :-P

Blame it on my birthday, but my brain was running a little slow.

However, it doesn't mean that I wasn't working on something! Coming next week is a special surprise, and it's related to this:













What is it? What part of "Coming next week" didn't you get? LOL

See you guys next week, hopefully with my brainial matter functioning as normal! :-P

Sky high heeled shoes! Not for me, thank you!

Along with being hideously ugly, these shoes are dangerous! Not for this GF, thank you very much! And check out shoe #2 in that series of pics! Yikes!

Just had to post this. Guys, these aren't fashion, these are disasters!

What other superhero movies would I like to see made?

Okay, enough of the boobery of last week! LOL

Now to get back to comics! Whoohoooooo!!! Today we are going with a comics-related Q&A, and that Q is thus: "What superhero movie would I most like to see being made?"

Easy A: A superhero movie of me! Well, what did you expect?

However, if you want to know what superhero movie I would like to see BESIDES one of me, well then I would have to say Green Lantern, whether it's Hal Jordan, Alan Scott, or any of the other GLs. I just hope they can make the green light look cool and convincing!

My GFs daring me again: Breast feeding

I found out that my real life GFs collaborated to hit me with various boob-related questions just to see if I would cover them on my blog. As I've told them before, I try not to cover topics that are TOO heavy into female physiology and all the mysterious stuff our bodies do, because this is a blog about comics and the movies. Most of my readers are male who not only might be uninterested in the minutia of femininity (for example, do you guys really care what kind of nail polish or shampoo I use?), but actually might be turned off by such topics. However, since my GFs have challenged me and since I like to meet challenges head-on, I ask that you guys allow me to indulge in this for today and possibly another time or two. I promise I won't let my blog drift into a "chick blog", and that I'll stick to comics and movies.

So anyway, I'll be taking on not one, but two challenges, since they are related to basically the same thing. This is in regards to the benefits of breast feeding, and to the issue of breast feeding in public.

In regards to the first topic, what can I say but I agree that breast feeding benefits the baby? My only question would be in regards to the mother and our modern cultural tendency to put drugs in our bodies. And here I don't mean just illegal drugs such as marijuana or cocaine, but also alcohol and nicotine. On top of that are the prescription drugs that many of us take not because we have to, but just to "cope" with life.

Just as with pregnancy, anything that women put into their bodies also goes to their babies via breast feeding, and I hope that the medical professionals as well as their spouses and family members remind them of that should they take this up while still using any sort of legal or illegal drug. If they really want to take full advantage of all the benefits that babies get from breast feeding, then can they unhook themselves of whatever drug addictions they may have, at least while they are breast feeding?

It just occurred to me that I don't recall a single instance in which a superhero woman breast fed her baby in a comic book. I might have to look into that. Also, what if the She-Hulk breast fed her babies? Does she have gamma-irradiated milk that would turn her children into baby Hulks? Remember, She-Hulk became a Hulk because of a blood transfusion from her cousin, the Hulk. In other words, it was an exchange of body fluids of Bruce Banner's gamma irradiated blood. So theoretically, shouldn't the same logic apply here? It might be an ethical issue for her to deal with, whether to essentially curse her children into "Hulkhood" by breast feeding them. Should she hire out another woman to breast feed them, then, if she wants her kids to have the breast feeding benefit? Hm. I wonder if any comic writers will ever take this up? LOL

As for breast feeding in public, same with going around in public while topless: If you don't want people to stare, then don't do it. Our society still has issues with bare female breasts in public, so no woman should be surprised if they whip one of their boobs out in public and find that others take surprise and even offense. If they want to "challenge" our discomfort with the bare breast in public, then they have to expect to deal with the flak from others for the time being. That's just how it is right now. If you don't want stares or snarky comments, then be discreet, or go find a spot that is out of the way.

So there you go, GFs! How did I do?

Boobs in the news, and I don't mean you nerds!

With a blog that has "Busty" in the title, such questions are to be expected. :-)

One of my real life friends sent me a link related to boobery, and she asked me to comment on it. She was daring me, actually, so here we go!

In this story, in the city of Portland, Maine, women were taking advantage of the fact that they can go around topless legally. What I found particularly amusing is the sub-title, which states: "The picture-taking bothers the event's organizer, who says partial nudity shouldn't be remarkable". Even more amusing was a statement in the article, in which Ty McDowell, the organizer of the event, states: "I'm amazed," she said, and "enraged (at) the fact that there's a wall of men watching."

Amazed and enraged? HEL-LOOOO!!!! What planet is this woman living on? In what part of the U.S. are men NOT sexually stimulated by a pair of bare breasts, especially when they don't have to pay for such a sight? Even in our allegedly "open-minded and enlightened" society, men are still men! I can't believe that any woman can be so clueless as to be surprised that an event in which women are going to walk around topless wouldn't attract men with cameras, ESPECIALLY in our digital age in which there are cellphone cameras! I wouldn't be surprised if she sues, to be honest, but the surprise is that she was surprised that men with cameras would show up. I blame feminism for helping create such clueless women.

Look, there may be a day in which women will not feel uncomfortable going around topless, but unless Obamacare one day requires men to castrated (Don't think it's too crazy, dudes! Remember, feminists are one of Obama's core constituencies!) , I don't see a day in which men won't be snapping pictures of them. A pretty woman is a pretty woman, and a topless pretty woman is a flame for the moths that are young men with cameras. That's biology, folks, and no one should be surprised - even feminists. So if any women want to get over their discomfort in going around topless, then she will have to put up with men taking pictures of her. She also shouldn't be surprised if her pics end up on porno sites.

This is simple logic, folks. If a woman doesn't want men taking pics of her while topless and she doesn't want to end up on porn sites, then she should keep her top on while in public. And since I know this is going to be asked next, no I will not be going around topless anytime soon. Not gonna happen, so put such thoughts and ideas out of your head. :-P

A Joyous and Blessed Easter to you all!

Short post today, 'cause of lots of stuff to do! However, I want to take this time to wish you all a Joyous and Blessed Easter!

See you next week! :-D