"That indicates that the focus is not necessarily or not just on sexuality, but on power. " That's only if power isn't something women consider sexy. Sexy rarely means the same thing for men and women.

Let me know if you actually have anything else to say.

I disagree that the way many people talk about games, the lenses they look at them through, is from the place of an art critic. To me, being an art critic requires a level of respect and understanding for art. Many people who claim to be supporters of these social issues, have none.

I'm sure to many you have in the past. There are definitely people more equipped than I to provide you with examples though. Many definitely do feel Kotaku represents an agenda or particular perspective though, a perspective that people all over seem to think is immune to criticism.

What drove Gamergate is gamers feeling they found clear reasons for journalist and bloggers to lose the moral authority that they have been asserting for a few years now. Lots of people who support it feel some type of way about different things, but I think that's what drove it. Gamers have been given the impression…

Like I said, the window is their because they likely felt her sexuality was an important part of her character.

Oh I get it you thought I was saying that you thought that. I said you, but I did not mean literally you. I meant it broadly. If you cannot make the argument that the presentation is inherently bad, then you cannot put the supposed lack of other characters, on any artist or art. I already said, if your problem is a…

??

Whether the action that takes place is supposed to take a back seat depends entirely on what the artists wants to do. It may seem irrelevant to the scene to you, but to others and maybe the artist, it's important to the character. To them it'd be like not drawing spider-man in the red and blue because it's irrelevant…

This is an A+ post.

If you see sex as dehumanizing then maybe you need to make some changes. Also, beloved character? Is this the first time she's been presented as sexy?

The window is already in her costume. Should they have edited it out for the cover? Should they change her costume every issue so they don't show too much skin for you? If you have a problem with her design fine, but they felt sex was a part of her as a character.

Actually, it likely took longer to do her face, even if it doesn't look as good to you.

I said that sexy is as valid a characteristic to present, as being powerful.

That's not really what it looks like to me. The bend never really seemed awkward to me and gives the impression that she's creeping through the sewers.

That's a really good Storm cover.

I didn't say the pose was powerful, though I'm sure someone could interpret it as powerful in one way or another. I mean that "sexy" is as valid a part of a personality or character as powerful.

They can respect art, in retrospect, when they are detached from the culture. A lot of the people complaining about these things are the same that would have been trying to cover up statues and paintings.

"Sexy" is as valid a part of someone's character as "powerful". I understand wanting more, non sexual characters, but unless something's inherently wrong about a sexual depiction of one, why on earth would a spider-woman variant cover be a problem? And why would a variant cover not be an appropriate place?

Does spandex usually cling to every ab and upper body muscle like in many depictions of spider-man?