Is Wonder Woman a good movie?!

That's an interesting point Rosie.

Does being the Father of a daughter morally ban one from publically letching other women?

I have a colleague at work who can't let a female go by without making some comment about her physical attributes, before telling us what he'd like to do to her...and yet this guy has a lovely teenage daughter.
I wonder how he'd feel if he heard me comment likewise about her, should she ever pass our premises?
Oh and by the way...he's also a Church Elder...go figure.

I think we are talking about completely different aspects of the movie here. Acting Plot... (oh well, large enough for the Titanic to sail through, but better than most superhero movies to be honest) Filming Effects - not the best but good enough From a spanko's view who has cherished the comic book for 40 years 1/10.

Dear Rosie, I strictly separate my inner fantasy spanko life from real life and there is no need to worry about my daughter as she is active in a feminist group at school, bringing much attention to these things. I on the other hand feel that we're partly moving in the wrong direction. I'd rather have more objectification of men than less in women, but not necessarily the kind of objectification that we have today, which I also tried to point out when writing that I didn't want a braindead bigtitted bimbo playing WW. There is 'good' or 'bad' objectification and many commercials show the lowest. This can be discussed for an eternity without reaching a conclusion and I can't off the wall pinpoint what I mean better than this. I want a sensual society, not a stiff and grey one. I grew up in a part socialist, rather dull period when almost every interesting American TV series was censored and we had East German children's TV. That really sucked. I want gaud and glamour. I was disappointed that the comic had been altered so much and I think that WW was portrayed condescendingly in other ways in the movie, which ticked me off more than it might have disturbed people if she had been objectified. I'm thinking for example of the scene when she, totally confused, can't make it through a revolving door. That was plain silly. She has an eternity of battle training and you mean to tell me that she can't go through a revolving door with enough space for two persons at a time? That was truly patronizing, telling that no matter her goddess status or eternal training, she can't take a step on her own in the real world without the help of a man. I guess it was supposed to be the comic relief part of the movie to make up for the gas attacks, but it just didn't work for me. I think it would have been more fair if she had been portrayed smarter and more urban (she had after all read I don't know how many books, which of at least twelve entire volumes were dedicated to biological sex alone). So, apart from being apt at fighting, I don't feel that she was shown as very much of a female icon. In the comic I always saw her as smarter than Superman, but here she acted most of the time as an easily distracted teen. To me the superhero movies are today's version of the extravagant Hollywood movies of the 1940s, when everyone look sexy and danced, the plot being minimal and you could rest your eyes on their features and forget your ordinary life for a few hours if you wanted. But this tme it wasn't. This was just blood, lethal gas and blood.

You say this like its a bad thing.

Marston's concept for Wonder Woman was deeply confused. On one hand, he wanted her to be a strong female role model, and to represent this idealistic, utopian society of peaceful female leadership. On the other, he wanted her to be a submissive waifu. With a lot of really weird early twentieth century gender essentialism tacked on to both aspects of her nature.

Characters evolve over time. This was a positive evolution.


No, it doesn't morally ban you from letching women. However, there are plenty of venues for doing that, and complaining about the Wonder Woman movie not being one of them - when said movie has apparently been quite an inspiration to many young girls, based on what I've read - seems rather petty and shortsighted.


Its funny. I didn't even like the movie THAT much (like I said, I thought it was decent, not great), but you guys' complaints make me feel compelled to defend it.

Oh, I don't feel that anyone picked that much on it in this thread. It's no worse than most other movies in its genre. I gave the acting and the filming the thumbs up - but I sure do wouldn't have minded some more arse in that movie.

Objectifying in real life is a real problem, but why we can't no longer lean back in a chair and enjoy good looking women and men in a movie is beyond me. Self-objectification is a problem for many young women, yes. In commercials it swings both way. Men always come with a six pack on their stomachs, perfect hair, muscular body and features that less than one in a million can even dream of obtaining. I never hear any women or men complaining about that. I know that there are a gazillion more ads with gratuitously naked women than with men, so yes - it's not balanced, I know, but still - people in ads are ideal and with often airbrushed features, enlarged breast etc. But to me it is just like art. Sure, I can go see some local artist's daub - but I'd much rather go see a Rembrandt painting. Same, same I'd much rather see an impossibly good looking couple in a movie than an average one, no matter if they are airbrushed or digital. I don't feel any need to go exercising and I don't see no need for my wife to go get a boob job just because I have those incredibly good-looking people in the ads. We're fine as we are, but any day I prefer the better looking idols than the not so fashionable ones in a movie. So, if everybody could just get a better self-confidence, feel okay with their bodies, so I can go to the movies and see astonishing looking women with the camera focusing on their attributes - that would be great.

I never saw WW as a submissive bondage victim even if that might have been the intention some twenty years before I picked the comic up. The intention could well have been though. That would have been interesting, but I fear that it would have rewarded a rather severe age restriction on the movie.

About the movie apparently being an inspiration to young women, that is good, but I feel that that's rather independent of I enjoying the movie or not. It doesn't have to be a good movie even if it is a great inspiration. By that not saying that it was a shitty movie exactly. I'm just giving the opinion of one single person here and I'm probably not even part of the target audience for the film makers in this case. And my opinion is more focus on that shiny bright blue bikini bottom.

I find it awesome that she is an inspiration to both sides; the ones who want to be spanked, as well as the ones who want to spank her. To me it was however to see her spanked; bringing the cocky and mighty ones on top down always gives more pleasure, no matter what gender they are.

Say, her having read all twelve volumes on biological sex, I wonder if she was schooled in different variations than just straight sex. Maybe if Steve had been a tiny bit smarter, maybe he had discovered that she might just be interested in some alternative scenarios, like spanking.

There have been so many images of Wonder Woman and this movie is just another.
Mention of World War I in a post impels me to point out that the early WW comic books had her battling the Axis powers in World War II. Further, the first season of the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman was set in World War II , and one of the first episodes of the second season which had moved to the present had a plot involving a neo-Nazi group in South America and a Nazi doctor cloning Hitler to lead the organization in a new world conquest.
Superman comics in that era also had war related plots. Although must ask the question why with his awesome powers he did not just crush the Nazis singlehandedly and no need for the Allies to fight a war!
Since I have yet to see the movie and don't know how much "rear exposure" there is will not attempt to weigh in on that matter.
Of course spankos seeing female characters butts on film are going to have thoughts about spanking them! How could we not?
Have said before that with all the gorgeous bottoms on Baywatch how unfortunate it was that none of them ever got spanked. And certainly some of those Baywatch Babes, lifeguards and others, needed it with some of the stuff they did! Some real brats there were!
Another program where its fun to imagine characters getting spanked is Gilmore Girls. Both mom Lorelai and daughter Rory had nice bottoms. One thing though, they always stayed covered up. Have not seen all the episodes but have never seen anyone in a swimsuit and only once Lorelai was wearing shorts. Of coursr there was one episode where she was proclaiming she was not wearing underwear because she had not done laundry and had no clean panties. Now that would have been one where a spanking could have been worked in to the show!

I think perhaps fathers of daughters may be particularly sensitive to the messages that media objectifying women sends to girls and women, and may wish to protect the females he loves, especially daughters, from such messages. And if maybe that means settling for a less sexy Wonder Woman than he would personally prefer, many fathers, understanding the stakes, would see that as an acceptable trade-off.

p.s. I haven't seen the movie. I was responding only to the "what's the harm in a little eye candy?" reactions.

Well, from what I've noticed so far my daughter has zero sensitivity to self-objectification, so I don't worry too much about any possible side-effects from possible objectification in a fictional superhero movie. I also would like to argue the relation between those two things as I fail to see that something is 'at stake' here and stands or fall with WW showing some arse or not. I don't feel that these two things are opposed to each other and I would be very sad if the only way to achieve a righteous world would be to not have any sensuality or good looking person in the movies wriggling their arse ever again. I actually do think that we can have eye-candy and still not do permanent damage to people's minds. I've never identified myself with any of the God-like men in the commercials and I much rather have them showing their bodies off than someone looking like me doing it. As said, it's like art to me. You're not buying the ugly painting; you go for the masterpiece and most often the slightly more erotic one. It's no wonder most Greek statues are naked and many, many of them are men. We are always looking for the best looking, so why can't we do that in the movies any longer? Maybe I wasn't clear, but being the way I am with my kink I think only of WW's arse, but I wouldn't have been bothered had Steve and any other male in the movie wiggled his arse for the benefit of the ones that enjoy that. I think it would be more enjoyable a movie if we had had some eye candy in it. More arses for everybody!

He didn't see the conflict there. Marston , an early psychologist, helped build the foundations of DISC theory that is still used today. The most recent review of that system found that "DISC has construct validity with significant correlations compared to the 16 PF strongly suggesting that it has scientific validity as a psychometric instrument".

As a psychologist "Marston posited that there is a masculine notion of freedom that is inherently anarchic and violent and an opposing feminine notion based on "Love Allure" that leads to an ideal state of submission to loving authority", and based Wonder Woman on that theory. Well, that theory and his "live in grad student / love slave / mother of some of his children" Olive Byrne along with some elements of his wife.

Would his Wonder Woman fit with modern society? I don't know, but removing those basic elements from the Wonder Woman character is akin to giving Bruce Wayne a happy childhood (one where his parents lived and are still alive), a loving wife, and kids. I'm not saying that no superhero should have such a happy family life, but the resulting hero would have little in common with Batman.

Besides, what's wrong with a role model admitting that she has a submissive side? One that likes to be tied up? Think back to when you first thought spanking was something other than a punishment: wouldn't it have been nice to have a "kick ass on the battle field / willingly submissive at home" role model who was into spanking that you could have looked to? Say a Wonder Woman who could fight it out with the guys but submit at home and maybe a "Wonder Boy" who battled the bad guys but later enjoyed a good spanking. Heck, maybe a pair of characters like that could be a couple who enjoy switching between sub/dom?