The "Wonder Woman cover" is a nice one indeed, but my favorite Playmate-as-cartoon-character cover is still Laura Richmond as Jessica Rabbit.

http://cyber.playboy.com/members/magazine/covers/1988/11/

Good stuff--this is such a non-controversy, non-issue, and it's nice to see that your response treats it accordingly. I don't read Playboy, nor do I read Wonder Woman, but i got yer back on this one.

You are going to kill me but she looks more like Wonder Woman then Olivia Munn who had the online petition to be cast as Wonder Woman and whom I think is very cute, very beloved but bares no resemblance to Wonder Woman's physique wise in the slightest.

Hollywood and everyone under the age of 50 who reads comics has been trying for over a quartet of century to even produce a reasonable facsimile for Lynda Carter and no one can approach her as Wonder Woman so why not give Playboy? You do these things for fun right? I like the cover and i live for Wonder Woman so there you go. You seem to be celebrating the spirit not reenacting the film roll-good job!

STILL, it is important to note that Lynda Carter did the impossible which was be melodiously sexy without EVER trying to be sexy in the slightest and never having the character NEED to be or appear sexually alluring which keeps the spirit of the character 100%. I guess when you have alongside Raquel Welch in photo finsih, THE BEST BODY in the history of Hollywood you can focus on othera spoecst of being in such arevaling outfit ;)

Playboy did not keep that spirit which is why there is all the caterwauling , what you DID do well with the cover is to celebrate her in the charming way that countless of women (and more than a few drag queens) do all the time when they put the costume. Tiffany did it VERY WELL. THANK YOU for making sure your cover model who wears the stars and eagle has a true hourglass figure too. All these buxom brunettes with hip to ratios, Hef you are on a roll-please continue!!

Just don't do the Scarlet Witch without me!

http://hometown.aol.com/thebarnyardofart/images/rinaldiscarletwitch2.jpg

I realize that you're required to write these kinds of meaningless "rebuttals" when someone objects to your covers, but you do realize that your response contains no actual reasoning, right? Let's look at your points:

1: You chose a topic, "Sex in America." Mozel tov. That has jack all to do with the actual objection to the cover. All you're doing is describing that which people object to. That does not constitute and argument.

2: Yes, Wonder Woman is a feminist icon. Backhandedly dismissing that well-known fact of popular feminism in America is a very lame, passive-aggressive tactic. Google "Ms. Magazine" and see what you find. As for Marston, digging up his corpse has little to do with your cover. This is just another distraction ploy and does not constitute an argument.

3: "That's far-fetched" is barely even a response, let alone an argument. After a decade of powerful women action stars and the strong possibility of a female president of the US, the subject of a woman in power is in the public consciousness, so whether it was deliberate or not, doing a cheesecake shot of Wonder Woman on your cover is topical.

4: Celebrations of Wonder Woman have almost nothing whatever to do with Lynda Carter. The character was created in the 40s, before Carter was a glint in her mum's eye. Accusing people of insulting your model is, again, a distraction ploy. It is not an argument.

5: You seem to be confusing outrage with surprise. Nobody is surprised at how you represent women, but we reserve the right to be offended regardless of how many times you repeat the offence.

For the record, I'm a straight man. I love how women look naked. Unfortunately, your magazine hasn't featured a "woman" in decades. Your images are so Photoshopped that they look more like video games than anything else. This is why many people are offended by your magazine. Not because they don't like sex (really, you must get off that tired old excuse), but because they don't like how you suck the humanity out of your models.

I'd like to think that the women in your magazine are interesting, thoughtful, and dynamic. I'd like to think they have opinions about art, international politics, or even just what constitutes a really good Punk band. A hot body and an active mind are both huge turn-ons for the supposedly sophisticated men that you claim "read" your magazine.

But your images tell me, in no uncertain terms, that your women have none of these things. The images seem designed to remove any trace of what a real woman looks like. You smooth out any and all wrinkles, remove actual flesh tones from the skin and replace it with computerized bronzing, you whiten eyes and teeth to the point of vamipirism, etc. etc. etc. Your images offend me on a specific level: my intelligence. I find them boring, barely human, and when all is said and done, not in the slightest bit sexy.

As for Wonder Woman, if you really want to capture her creator's intent, portray her lifting a car or smashing through a brick wall. Have her actually do something, something heroic, something powerful. Lord knows, you have plenty of CG artists on staff who can whip up such an image.

For all that Marston's intention was to create a sexy woman, he explicitly wanted to create a woman whose sexiness came from a place of strength, but the very idea of a strong, sexy woman seems entirely antithetical to the ideology of your magazine.

Hello - I'm the Rachel to whose post you linked.

You're right when you say that "rebuttal" would be too strong a word - "dismissal" might be closer to what you're shooting for. For mine, I'll try at "response."

1. It's your cover, and you're being held responsible. Playboy markets itself as a cultural movement and brand, and that status comes with a certain amount of accountability. "It's our cover and we don't have to defend it" is one of the lamest arguments I've ever read, and I used to teach freshman writing.

2. It seems bizarre to me that a publication that prides itself (often legitimately) on being culturally savvy would have no idea that Wonder Woman is a feminist symbol or icon; or that she was created as a good deal more than a sex symbol and outlet for Marston's kinks.

I think it's entirely true that Wonder Woman is both a feminist icon and a sex symbol, and I'm okay with that. But you presented her as only the latter - in effect committing the same error of which you're now accusing critics.

3. It may not have been deliberate, but if you can't see why it's significant, please consider a line of work that doesn't require cultural literacy. Seriously.

4. At least for me, the objection is less to the comparison than to the fact that it seems to be only skin-deep. Lynda Carter is an icon for reasons that substantially supercede her appearance; if you'd spent a bit more time on those, I'd have had no problem with the analogy. And I DON'T have a problem with Fallon pulling on Wonder Woman's spangly briefs - just with the manner and context in which you presented her.

5. Do you realize how close this sounds to "Boys will be boys"? And how completely it misses the point?

I have no problem with the idea of Wonder Woman as sexy - she is. It's reducing her to JUST sexy that sticks in my craw. Part of what I've liked and respected about Playboy over the years is that while you're making porn for hetero men, you tend out of the way to present the women you show off as people, not just eye candy; your attitude toward sexuality and the women's movement has generally been - dare I say it - more than a little feminist. That's part of why I'm so disappointed now - Playboy is a publication that I would have expected to have enough skill and savvy to understand that strong and sexy aren't mutually exclusive, and that they're equal parts of Wonder Woman's value as an icon. Take one away, and all you have is a pretty girl in body paint.

I love the righteous indignation of comic book fans. Have you looked at a rack of comics these days? More of the "women", depicted on comic book covers alone are more provocative than yours. At least you have the honesty to admit to selling sex.

I also object to the portrayal of women in comics, and for largely the same reasons, but your objection is actually based on an unspoken assumption that because I read comics, I'm automatically required to morally approve of all their practises. Now, does that make any sense to you? Do you feel you have to morally approve of everything that Playboy does?

It's also important to repeat something here: I don't object to sex. I don't object to sexy women depicted in magazines, movies, television shows, or comic books. What bugs me is HOW we portray sexiness. The overwhelming majority of depictions of women in the media put them in positions of weakness, through narrative (movies, TV, comics), through body language (putting women "off balance") and through the bodies we choose to depict (rail-thin instead of physically strong).

I would love to see a sexy spread of Wonder Woman tossing cars around, holding up buildings with one hand, flying through the air, all those images that we associate with superheroes. That's what makes her sexy. Turning her into cheesecake fluff takes away exactly the thing about the character that makes her attractive, her strength.

As for honesty, I have three responses. First, sure, Playboy is more honest about selling sex. It's a red herring, but sure, it's true. However, it's immaterial to the discussion at hand because, second, I don't particularly care if someone's honest about doing something I object to. I'm still going to object. I still find the act itself objectionable. And freedom of speech means that I get to object to content of someone else's expression, which is what I'm doing right now.

Third, Playboy's marketing ploy has always been that they are supposedly pro-sex and pro-women, but their photo spreads rarely allow their women to be strong individuals in their own right. Sure, they have the little "my turns-ons include..." section, but those are about as generic as the photos themselves. The bodies they choose, the poses, the hair, the make-up, and of course the digital touch-up work, makes all those women look basically the same, and as I said above, the "genre" of female sexuality is: submissive and weak. Why is mainstream media so scared of strong women (and Playboy is hopelessly mainstream, claiming rebel status at this point is just ridiculous) ?

That's what's missing from the Wonder Woman image: some acknowledgement that this is a character with her own history and associated imagery. The shot is just lazy. You tossed a brunette in a costume. Whoop di do.

"Celebrations of Wonder Woman have almost nothing whatever to do with Lynda Carter. The character was created in the 40s, before Carter was a glint in her mum's eye."

I beg to differ Orion as the clear as day almost embarrassing and wholly perplexing inability to recast anyone, even the most beautiful, in subsequent adaptations of the Tv show much less a film is because of Lynda Carter's instinctual and unrivaled identification with wonder Woman.

"but the very idea of a strong, sexy woman seems entirely antithetical to the ideology of your magazine."

Not true. It's a magazine for men that glorifies one archetype of female beauty that seems to be almost universally revered as well as featuring (on occasion) many women who don't exactly fit that archetype but who are sexy in their own powerful way enough to attract the attention of millions for their sexual magnetism; Chynna and Sandra Bernhard come to mind.

"Third, Playboy's marketing ploy has always been that they are supposedly pro-sex and pro-women, but their photo spreads rarely allow their women to be strong individuals in their own right. Sure, they have the little "my turns-ons include..." section,"

Once again the centerfold is simply a stunning physical archetype favored by Hugh Hefner of the younger slightly unsophisticated (Hefner's own term) fresh faced wholesome girl next door photographed to a luminous and stunning effect with no prison hardened criminal tattoos.

The magazine is not supposed to be about female empowerment. By the way, women have created their own magazines ranging from delightfully sex saturated fashion mags to the "feminists" magazines that actually rationalize the exploitation of other women via hiring and paying domestic workers low wages by calling it "empowering" and "career control."

All of you who believe in the Wonder Woman spirit should be would be taking to MS magazine to task that they simply ignore the plight of millions of nannies and poorly paid domestic workers going so far to call the first female writer to call them on it, Caitlin Flanagan, an "Anti-feminist."

From MS Magazine's website: "Decoding anti-feminist writer Caitlin Flanagan"

Guarantee if there was a huge expose on this critical subject of a childcare crisis which women have propped up in the US, Playboy would publish it before MS magazine would. MS magazines website offers an virtually nothing on these inequities of women who exploit other women to stay ahead and raise their children. It's simply vulgar and inexcusable.

Complaining about the wearing of a universally loved costume pales in comparison to fighting the good fight for women. From publishing the opinions of a diverse group of female writers and journalists Playboy has a much better track record then many columnists dare admit.

You might be able to clear up a question for me - did you get authorisation/clearance from DC before you put the franchise property on the front cover?

DS, don't expect an answer on that. DC has already "declined to participate in this story."

Cute.

Amanda, I agree with you about Lynda Carter and Wonder Woman being inextricably linked at this point, but when it comes to Ms., you're tilting at straw men.

And no, Playboy isn't "supposed" to be about female empowerment. But they have consistently and deliberately adopted just that image, and on this cover, they've coopted what is inarguably a feminist icon.

Oh, and before you go rationalizing this cover away by dropping Lynda's name, maybe you should take a look at what she thinks about Wonder Woman:

"...She was, and is, a character that had the potential of being very influential in terms of how women see themselves, and how men see a woman being. Yes she can be beautiful, and she can be all that stuff, but she’s smart and she can kick my butt.

It was a very conscious decision on my part to play against what was expected. I never played sexuality. I never tried to “play” Wonder Woman. She didn’t think she was all that! She’s not all full of herself, and certainly not against men…but for women!"

I thought Playboy was extremely restrained in the way they portrayed Fallon as Wonder Woman. Heck, Wonder Woman has appeared naked and in chains in her own comic, Playboy could have gone a LOT farther if they had wanted to.

Feminists do not OWN Wonder Woman, though they have a legitimate claim to at least a part of legacy, because with the inaugural issue of Ms. Magazine Gloria Steinem wrote a cover article that more or less rescued Wonder Woman from incompetent hacks at DC Comics who had stripped her of all her powers and done away with her Greek mythology. But it's always been fanboys whose money has kept the comic going, so they have a legitimate claim to her, too. Guess we'll all have to share her as a commonly held American icon.

I'm curious about something. It's been reported that Dan Didio had some legal run-in with Playboy over the portrayal of a "bunny club" in the Justice League: New Frontier special that was recently published.

“DiDio indicated the “New Frontier Special” nearly got him into trouble vis-a-vis some legal issues concerning a certain “bunny club,” alluding to Playboy.” - comicbookresources.com

So, is Playboy's position that it's okay to use other peoples trademarked icons for commercial gain, but it's NOT okay for others to use Playboy's trademarked icons for use in the service of telling a story?