Robot 6

Artist Mimi Yoon fires back in ‘Powerpuff Girls’ cover controversy

powerpuff girls6Artist Mimi Yoon has responded to the controversy surrounding her variant cover for IDW Publishing’s The Powerpuff Girls #6, which was withdrawn last week by Cartoon Network following complaints that the illustration “sexualized” the pre-teen animated characters.

The chain of events began early last week when retailer Dennis Barger Jr. singled out the cover (at right) on his own Facebook page, asking, “Are we seriously sexualizing pre-teen girls like perverted writing fan fiction writers on the internet?”

IDW Publishing’s Dirk Wood explained that the cover was “mandated” by Cartoon Network, which selected Yoon and approved the artwork. When contacted by, the network’s licensing division noted that the cover was intended as direct-market collectible item; however, “We recognize some fans’ reaction to the cover and, as such, will no longer be releasing it at comic book shops.”

After making vague references to the dust-up on Thursday, Yoon took to her Facebook page Friday afternoon to address the matter directly:


my objective was to illustrate modern, pop cultured, SASSY (not sexy), and humanized Powerpuff Girls who have just beaten the crime lord and have him on the ground. yes, the girls are wearing latex costumes… SO?!?!?! don’t all superpowered heroes wear latex?

unfortunately, the comic book will never make it to the stores… yes, i’m truely disappointed… because a perverted mind decided to see in this image what his dirty mind has conjured up, and barked loud enough. worse, he brought up kids and used protecting kids and kids’ perspective in his reasoning/excuse. does he think kids are dumber than him?

Yoon, whose work is frequently racier than the Powerpuff Girls cover, received an outpouring of support on her Facebook page. In addition, IDW Editor-in-Chief Chris Ryall tweeted Friday that he, “Had a good chat with Mimi Yoon […] tonight about what her next IDW cover is going to be. Going to be a fun one.”

On Saturday, Yoon took aim directly at Barger, linking to 2012 photos of the Detroit Fanfare co-promoter posing with strippers at Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club:

i find all of the accusations for my Powerpuff Girls image sexualizing minors not only ridiculous but also embarrassing (for the accusers) and disturbing especially since it’s started by a person of such value as seen in the pictures below.

a person argued that i’ve gained popularity from the situation, but I’VE NEVER ASKED FOR ANY OF THIS, ESPECIALLY IN THIS MANNER. and i’m curious to know why are all the arguments about trying to keep the image away from the girls? what about the boys?

by the way, it’s too late now…. the image has spread wider now than it would ever have as a comic book cover in stores.

computer savvy children are seeing it and will see it for a long long time easily too on their computer monitors, even the ones who would never have if this nonsense has not started by that one perverted mind who conjured up the nonsense in his dirty mind. how is he going to stop the kids from seeing the image on the internet now?

According to ICv2, IDW will notify retailers on Tuesday about a replacement cover, and will be able to adjust their orders accordingly.



Yoon seems to have missed the point, to wit, that the characters are about seven years old. That’s why some people are talking about sexualizing minors.

Aaron V Steimle

January 27, 2014 at 9:24 am

“…the image has spread wider now than it would ever have as a comic book cover in stores.”

Too true; the actions of those wanting to hide the cover image have more successfully spread that image far more than if they’d left it alone. Sometimes people should learn to leave well alone.

Come on, they’re obviously not seven years old in that image. This artist is completely right, anyone who would look at that badass, totally non-explicit image and say, “Think of the children!” is concern trolling. It’s an image of the PPGs as older girls, wearing quite modest costumes. That doesn’t automatically make it porno (unless you spend so much time on the Internet that you see EVERYTHING as porno).

I also find Yoon’s typo-ridden rage quite frank and charming.

Kudos to her for not taking any of this crap.

Hey Hank … those characters on the specialized cover are NOT 7 years old … they are being portrayed as older, more mature versions … Pre-teens on Disney shows are sexualized more than these make-believe pretend NONHUMAN characters

I never had a dog in this fight either way, but was interested to see that Mimi’s reactions belie a lot of emotional immaturity for someone who has a habit of drawing more “mature” material (not this cover, obviously). Talk about throwing a tantrum.

I never thought it was the Powerpuff Girls as little girls, but just a picture of the girls grown up.

“Hey Hank … those characters on the specialized cover are NOT 7 years old…” Then why is the story inside still aimed directly at children? If the story inside were about them being older, it would have made perfect sense.

“…make-believe pretend NONHUMAN characters…”

How are they nonhuman? Do you mean “fictional”? That doesn’t really compute as an argument.

FWIW, I never had a problem with the art, it’s the context in which it appeared on the cover of a kids book. I rather like the cover myself.

Common Observer

January 27, 2014 at 9:49 am

I think the question was completely validated. Without context given to the variant cover, which rarely happens, it looks as if she drew the seven-year-olds as curvy and buxom. As far as her reaction to Barger, what does it have to do with anything that he was photographed with strippers? What two consenting adults engage in shouldn’t be a shamed. Is it really not okay to just ask a question about a product being sold in your store for fear of this type of backlash? She needs to calm down.

Geez, some people really don’t understand the word “sexualize”. You want an example of true seuxalization of 7 year olds, look up any child beauty pageant. THAT’S sexualizing. Drawing older versions of the powerpuff girls, is just that, drawing older versions of them.

When you’re horny, you can sexualize almost anything. You can look at artistic nude photographs and call it porn, then after release call it a beautiful study on anatomy. It all depends on you’re current lens.

“Hey Hank … those characters on the specialized cover are NOT 7 years old…” Then why is the story inside still aimed directly at children? If the story inside were about them being older, it would have made perfect sense.

It’s called a variant genius. Are Deadpool and the Scribblenauts showing up in every comic they get put on a variant for?

@Justice: Just curious, you wouldn’t find it frustrating to see your hard work get shot down like this because of the “concerns” of one person on the internet? I’d like to know more about your life where you wouldn’t get upset that because one person misconstrued your hard work and because of that it’s completely scrapped.

@Hank: You obviously have missed the point of this pic but whatever, Kudos to your ignorance.
@Justice: Really? Really? I applaud Mimi Yoon for what she said. The prick who is obviously a hypocrite made such a wild accusation over something that isn’t overly sexualized but shows the girls more mature. You are just as bad of a hypocrite as the one who deemed this art piece prevented.

This from the same country that brought us “Toddlers and Tiaras”. Double standards up to the hilt, anyone?

She has every right to be pissed.

This variant cover is not meant for kids, unless there’s this largely-unknown market of variant collectors under the age of 13.

I imagine that if I drew something that I just thought was fun and everybody started saying it was dirty and perverted, I’d get pretty pissed off too.

No one is addressing how “he hung out with strippers at least once” translates to “hypocrite.”

For me the real problem is the bad art. It´s horrible. Her characters have always the SAME eyes! She has good skill, but lacks soul. Fuck this dumb prude american “controversy”.

You can’t blame the artist so much as the people who approved it as a cover. Surprised they didn’t anticipate what the reaction would be.

I’m actually embarrassed for anyone who views those on the cover of this comic as “kids” when obviously they are older versions of the characters. Barbies have breasts, Bratz have them as well and tall boots as well.

Anyone who views this cover as “sexy kids” has a few issues of their own they should address.

Personally I think it’s a great piece of art that was shot down by an old man with a dirty mind.

i kinda agree with him. I don’t see the image as sexualised, especially not by the standards of some comic portrayals of women recently (looking at you Land) Are they “women” as opposed to girls with all the accoutrements of womanhood? Yes. I do feel like this is an instance of the whole “issue” of women in comics needing a new goat to scape and this cover just happened to turn up at an inopportune moment.

As someone else mentioned, without context this cover does raise some questions. My experience with PPG is from the show, so I’ve only ever seen them as chibi 7 year olds, and after going to her page and seeing the racy stuff she’s drawn, my impression of the cover was, “So THIS is what my otaku cousin is talking about when he brings up lollicon and the pervert fans who buy it.”

Maybe if this had been a cover to a flash-forward story about the PPGs as teenagers, this controversy could have been avoided. As it is, considering the trope nature of flash forwards in superhero comics and how PPG uses superheroes as inspiration, it probably won’t be long before this series does one of those stories and they should just save Yoon’s cover for that issue.

More power to Mimi!!
Be the Artist and be proud!
Don’t let the bigots bring you down!

Oddly enough, their figures don’t bother me as much as their cold, Barbie doll faces.

Comics have covers that have nothing to do with the plot sometimes. And sometimes that have totally misleading covers. It just happens.

It seems like seeing the PPGs as teens and drawn in a totally different style than usual just gets people out of their comfort zone and the gut reaction is that it’s because it’s “sexy.” Well … it’s not. At least not moreso than casual art from any other property. I think it’s like seeing your little cousin all grown up after seeing her as just a kindergardener for ages. It’s a shock to the system. And, of course, it’s drawn completely outside of the PPG’s usual style (and it’s official), so there’s that too.

Because shoulders back, breasts and crotch jutted forward is a “sassy” “non-sexualized” pose. Right.

I’d say the cover would have been ok if the characters had been teens/adults and created to appeal to a teen/adult age group, but from what I gather they’re not, so I understood why the decision to withdraw the cover was made. It’s cool as fan art – what would the PPGs look like in ten years? – but it’s a little odd as an official cover. I’m sure the artist had good intentions and all, and I don’t really think it would have done any damage if the cover had stayed, but I totally get it.

Having your shoulders back is s a confident pose. And good posture. Don’t see anyone jutting their crotch out.

By the way:

That’s a picture of Wonder Woman with her “shoulders back, breasts and crotch jutted forward.” And Wondy shows a lot more skin than any of the PPGs. Unless you’re saying that animated Wonder Woman is also too sexualized to be good for children, in which case there’s just no hope for a decent conversation.

Shoulders back = confident. Powerful. Intimidating. Not “OMG, sexy.” Having breasts doesn’t change the nature of the pose. Unless the argument is breasts = too sexy for kids. By the way, they probably see covered up breasts all the time in real life. Women tend to have them.

“my objective was to illustrate modern, pop cultured, SASSY (not sexy), and humanized Powerpuff Girls who have just beaten the crime lord and have him on the ground. yes, the girls are wearing latex costumes… SO?!?!?! don’t all superpowered heroes wear latex?”

I can’t think of ANY superheroes who wear latex. Certainly the PPGs don’t. More worrisome: She doesn’t seem to register that she aged up the characters by 8-10 years.

My assumption is that she’s just not very familiar with the property and assumed that the characters were just very cartoony teenagers.

People are saying that the characters are seven years old, well, yeah, in the tv show. This version is CLEARLY representing them as much older. I agree that the sheen of the costumes could be toned down, but before we ban this from comic book shops who sell to a niche audience, I think we should be getting Toddlers in Tiaras of the air.

why stopping with Toddlers in Tiaras?
How about banning Lady Gaga? Rihanna? Justin Bieber?
How about banning tv? Computer games?
Let’s ban everything!
For the sake of the children!

“@Justice: Just curious, you wouldn’t find it frustrating to see your hard work get shot down like this because of the “concerns” of one person on the internet? I’d like to know more about your life where you wouldn’t get upset that because one person misconstrued your hard work and because of that it’s completely scrapped.”

@ACoolGuy: Sure, I would be frustrated. Who wouldn’t? But I am capable of registering that frustration while still responding tactfully respectfully, and maturely to that situation like an adult. That’s what ideally most adults when they resolve problems. There are many, many examples of both the childish response and the adult one in online dustups.

“@Justice: You are just as bad of a hypocrite as the one who deemed this art piece prevented.”

@ABeastKing: Not sure what you found hypocritical, or honestly maybe you used an incorrect word here. Either way honestly I couldn’t make sense of your response. Sorry, maybe if you clarified a bit?

First, this is a company owned and licensed property. As such it is their decision on what they publish and think is best for that property, not ours. That is rule number one. So let us not forget that. As business
owners they make the choices to do what they feel is best for the market they feel they are aiming the property at. Good or Bad.
Okay, we got that understood…good. ( If you disagree with this statement please tell me why. )
Second, who is the market for this comic? PPG in my opinion was a comic published for young ( 5-13 ) years old girls. Something to introduce them into super-heroes and comics? Something a parent could have confidence in letting their young daughter read without much fear of finding anything sexual or provocative in it’s pages. One might go as far as calling it a safe comic designed with those young kids in mind. I will say, I am not a regular reader of the comic, so I could be way off base here. ( If you disagree with the intended target audience please tell my why. )
Third, every person has a right to voice an opinion, whether parent or not a parent, “Variant” cover collector or just casual reader, store owner or guy who collects girls is various state of dress or undress, Art lover or art critic, whatever, and you can agree, disagree, or be impartial. But at the end of the day…they are just that opinions…
And last, just because someone’s opinion has changed the mind of someone in a position of ownership or power, does not make that person or persons, a threat to society or a threat to your comic reading experience. In this case the image is still out there, by now you’ve probably looked up the artist ( who, I believe was paid for the work done ), and if you like her work can order as much as you’d like from her. As pointed out, there are even more provocative versions of the PPG out there, and you can probably commission a more sexual version from some artists dying to do that type of work and get paid if you’d like too.
At the end of the day, what?, you were denied a cover “by the publishers of the property” a version, “they” felt would not enhance the PPG brand. Ultimately, it was the company’s choice to pull it. This seems more like a few hard core fans, or pervs, or variant collectors pissed off they couldn’t get their hands on a variant cover of teen-age, latex wearing, thigh high stocking, characters they may or may not have seen at some point on TV or in a comic shop. Really…that’s what all this uproar is about….sad…in my opinion….moving on.

Only in America can you do something like draw the Power Puff girls as teens on a variant cover and have someone call it sexualizing pre teens. Like Z-Ram said child beauty pageants are sexualizing children, I bet Dennis Barger Jr has never called TLC to complain about Toddlers and Tiaras.

First, the company requested the cover. And then they had a change of the heart. Why? They didn’t know what they want? Or maybe it’s the political correctness? Corporations can’t fight PC, they have only one choice: subordinate, to people who feel offended.

Two, there is nothing inappropriate in the variant cover, nor anything provocative. Only perverts would call the cover provocative.

Three, if it’s an opinion, then why one opinion is more valid than others? Why people, who are offended have more rights than people who aren’t offended. Why offended people have to prevail all the time?

Four, it’s annoying that people who make stink about everything win all the time. I hate these people.
Their opinion are invalid for me, because they make drama over nothing.

Five, it’s about principles. I wouldn’t even care about the comic, if not for the drama that was started over it.
I just don’t like prudes, who think they know better what is appropriate and what is not.
I wish that these people would stop looking for things to be offended at.

Six, yes, it is exhausting that the vocal minority rules the majority and makes everything bland and boring. Like their lifes. Every time. IT IS very exhausting. Like the woman who was offended that a guy next to her was watching porn on his phone during flight. Everyone is offended by everything. I just wish they would start raising their children instead of looking for a scapegoat.

And yes, I’m moving on too. It’s my opinion. Hope you’re entertained.

Do contemporary kids even know who ppg are? or just us in our 30s who don’t want our menories “tarnished”? i like the cover, btw

So, what all this means is that I’m not going to see a variant cover of Fuzzy Lumpkins in a thong, then?

Wow, some people need to stop thinking with their genitalia. The way the PPG are depicted is no more racy than a Barbie doll. I have Barbie’s from my childhood (the 80’s) that have outfits with short skirts and go-go boots. That was ok to give to little girls as toys, but now seeing an image of obviously older teen girls dressed in a similar fashion is not ok?

The only people who see that image as sexual are sexually obsessed adults. Children don’t see sexuality in images (look up the dolphin illusion for an example of this). All kids see in this image is older versions of the girls who just beat up Mojo-jojo.

Spending more time talking to children and explaining imagery (eg, Oh look, it’s a drawing of the girls when they’re 18, neat!) is way more useful than hiding away the world in hopes they never see it.

most audiences who like the powerpuff girls, were ten when it first aired. they are now twenty somethings. all mediums have to evolve and become more adult at some point to sell well. otherwise they have a dead property on their hands. Compare this cover to a supergirl cover. its not near as suggestive, yet ill bet the same parents who would have a prob with this, would have no prob with supergirl. smh Hypocrites. there’s nothing wrong with the girls here, growing up with the audience who is now in their twenty somethings, as they were ten when the power-puff girls first aired. this man needs to be fired. not praised.

Also: sex sells comics, and even the original take on the power-puff girls story-lines screams sex. ever watched an episode? im sure children wouldn’t get it, but as they re watched most episodes later, they realized what was actually insinuated. its the same with word girl. its the same with almost every cartoon. why? because the networks know sex, and the suggestion of it, sells well. and they WANT kids subconscious minds geared and ready for it, so that they will purchase things later in life, that have sexual advertisements attached to them. its this way with literally EVERYTHING we purchase, from fast food, to cars, to action figures, to comics. you cant have it both ways. its either an adult medium, which newsflash: IT IS, as only adults read comics…or its not, and its silly to believe its not an adult medium. look at comic cons. look at comic shops. 95% if not higher, that purchase, are females and males aged 17-100 years old. fact. they make up the majority of who buys, therefore its catered to them, and sexualized. (which is a good thing.)

I’m not really for this but how is this worst then the girls doll Bratz or monster hi

I don’t agree with the superheroes and latex thing. I mean I can see where she’s coming from, because sometimes superheroes ARE shown in shiny, skin tight costumes. I’d always figured superheroes are more know for wearing tights, but… *shrug*

Anyway. I’m still with the artist. It’s a variant cover. Anyone who would know what a variant cover is AND how to get it would understand that variants often have nothing to do with the story.

Dennis did not make the money pull the cover. The money pulled the cover to avoid a potential controversy pointed out by Dennis. One man’s opinion, especially one that does not own the property, does not cause monied people to change their position. The money made the decision, not this one retailer. So he voiced an opinion that some agree and others disagree with. Doesn’t make him the guy that pulled the cover, he’s merely the guy who voiced his opinion – on his own FB page.

People, come to your senses. You want to get mad at censorship, get mad at the people who censored it.

Brave Sir Robin

January 27, 2014 at 3:03 pm

Powerpuff girs are in kindergarten, so about 5. They are of course portrayed older than that due to their super powers in that they have wit and uderstanding about that age.

Sexualizing them is just freaking weird. I don’t know which is worse, Mini Moon and her self righteous agrandizing art must be free for that tripe or her defenders here.

At the bottom of it, she sexualized 5 year olds and the posters defend her. This is very, very weird. I love the comic book and I love the show. That cover, and learing fans who want them in spandex, have nothing to do with either.

the point is that this is not sexualized, but it would be a better thing for idw to make money if they did sexualize the pp girls. all of the original audiences grew up. they spend more on comics than children, therefore they are the ones who should be catered to. then u also have sexual under tones in the original series. so that kinda shoots cartoon network in the foot. several episodes have what could be construed as sexual undertones…where was the outrage then?

I would have bought this variant. I understand why they had to pull it though.

Could someone stop making me see this offensive cover all the time?! :P

just because it doesn’t look like a j. scott campbell cover or a total porn comic does not mean that’s it’s not a sexualized drawing of 5 year old girls. saying that’s it’s clear that it’s “grown-up” versions of powerpuff girls is such bullshit. i’m looking at some of ms. yoon’s art of adult and teenage ladies and it’s pretty clear that they were not intended to be in either age group. also using mojo’s head as reference either mojo has become king kong size or these “grown up ladies” have somehow grown up without gaining any size except in the chest and hip regions.

throwing around “well this is no different than barbie or bratz dolls” is part of the whole problem and is the whole reason why we have things like child beauty pagents. it’s a big part of why very young girls continue to feel judged entirely by their looks at increasingly young ages. do you not realize that?

despite all that my problem isn’t that isn’t with the art itself it’s really the contortions all the straight male majority are going into to justify their continued objectification of women regardless of age. calling the person who just might question why that is a pervert is a serve case of mass-deflection. you might as well call him a traitor and get it over with.

now i’ll be the first to admit i’m a pervert but i’m a gay pervert so whatever

You ever think CN was using this as a test to revamp the property. As someone mentioned this to me was an older version of the original character and rhe appearance just yells Bratz/Monster High and all those dolls/figures my nieces and nephews enjoy. As The publisher indicated the cover was chosen by the network. It wouldn’t have surprised me if the network had similar variants in the works – the character as teenagers in different art styles/designs (first response i get from people seeing this cover for the first time is they say its anime/manga art) to see what the feedback is. Cheap market research..

If that cover had been drawn by a man – say, Greg Horn – people would say he was a pervert. Likewise, if the complainant had been a woman, the character assassination seen here wouldn’t have happened. In other words the moral colour of an action depends entirely on who does it.

The people bitchen about this cover are the same jack asses who bitch about the peoples rights bein taken away see where im going?

Why do some people on this comments page make so, so little effort to understand the problem with the cover?

OF COURSE the characters are sexualised. Anyone who can’t see that is an absolute grade A moron, or blind, or doesn’t understand what sexuality is. The poses, the eyes, the costumes – all are about accentuating their sexuality above other aspects of their identity.

It isn’t *just* a picture of the Power Puff Girls grown up. You really do have to be incredibly disingenuous to posit such a ludicrous notion. Either that you’re some kind of alien or robot with no intuitive understanding of what sex is and how it’s signalled non-verbally.

But I’m going to go with the former – disingenuous, self-deceiving, intellectually dishonest poseurs the lot of you.

As to whether the image should be banned because it depicts women in sexualised poses – no, of course not. But it isn’t appropriate for a kids book. That’s a reasonable opinion for people to have. All you who are whining about political correctness ruining your comics or censorship – you really are a blight on the face of comic book culture. Read some fucking proper books, educate yourselves and come back to the debate with half a clue what you’re talking about.

Laughing at This

January 28, 2014 at 10:44 am

how is it 50% of the people think this is bad and think the guy had a valid point for exercising his freedom of speech and the other 50% say he has no right to his freedom of speech if that might mean it brings attention to something that is not sexual and somehow made a major corporation kill it, and who cares what he thinks he went to a strip club. Like none of the people saying they want this have ever been to a strip club, but they only collect sexy variant covers.

My god, you people are making us a bigger laughing stock than the bronies

PPG-pervs is what they will call you and their hero is Mimi Yoon the most clueless sexual artist that couldn’t possible draw a sexual cover for a kids book. Can’t wait for the Budd Root MLP cover, no one will find any problems with that i’m sure


You said a mouthful. Mack, you have it dead right. In other words, it’s cool for the artist to have freedom of speech. It’s not cool for the retailer. The retailer (not IDW, not CN) is responsible for having killed the cover. Which, by the by, has given the artist much, much more publicity than she has ever had in her life.

If I were the artist, I’d be sending the retailer a thank you note. She was made relevant to a wider audience due to this dustup.

I’m kind of tired of this censorship. We shouldn’t be able to tell any artist their work is being pulled, no matter who or how many people are offended. If it bothers you, well, just dont buy it. We are doomed as a race of creative people if we continue to let this happen.

You may be onto something, Jake. Contact Cartoon Network and IDW to voice your opinion with the decision makers!

Laughing at This

January 28, 2014 at 1:56 pm

agreed, when will Robert Mapplethorpe be doing covers for Archie of little jughead peeing, screw censorship, screw brand image let’s get as freaky as we can while this shit goes down.

I suggest that Jake be nominated CEO of Disney


@Ralph Griffith– ” Second, who is the market for this comic? PPG in my opinion was a comic published for young ( 5-13 ) years old girls. Something to introduce them into super-heroes and comics? Something a parent could have confidence in letting their young daughter read without much fear of finding anything sexual or provocative in it’s pages. One might go as far as calling it a safe comic designed with those young kids in mind. I will say, I am not a regular reader of the comic, so I could be way off base here.”
The PPG toon ran for 6 seasons ending in 1996. Anyone that age who first saw the PPG would be in their 20’s now at least. The PPG do show regularly on Boomerang, but that’s not the same as being advertised regularly on a basic cable network. So while it might appear that the target audience lies in the age-range you mention, these viewers probably have little to no exposure to the characters. As stated, you don’t read it, so you might not be aware that the target audiences were the fans of the original PPG. The first 5 issues were not so much an intro as they were a re-intro. While Barger has a point that kids’ comics should be for kids, PPG was never intended exclusively for kids.
As for your other points,I am in full agreement. While I feel CN overreacted here, they do own the characters and I’m sure they felt they were being responsible. But this all backfired anyway, as stated above, and the cover is seen across the Net now. I’m sure someone at CN is head-desking even now. Or maybe not. Lately they seem to be idiots–but that’s another topic.

i hope that one day, alien beings invade earth and control everyone so that no one starts petty quarrel about small details gone wrong. tsk. just make it simple to avoid confusion or whatever… i don’t side with anyone that is involved in this issue…

i typed the word “one” 4 times….HA!


January 29, 2014 at 5:05 am

You Americans sure love to ruin things with bad ideas and then obsessively defend bad ideas, don’t you? Just keep wondering why the rest of the world doesn’t like you very much.

Ken: “When you are horny, you can sexualize anything.”


You do know that even if you are NOT horny, you can sexualize anything?

Jebovampasmater “You Americans sure love to ruin things with bad ideas and then obsessively defend bad ideas, don’t you? Just keep wondering why the rest of the world doesn’t like you very much.”

You keep on thinking that, America basher. IDK where you are from, but I would never blame your entire country for producing douchebags like you.

First of all I am not a pervert nor am I offended but it’s obvious that they’re being sexualized. Yes MOST superheroes wear spandex but not all of them. Also its about more than just their attire. Its their stances, the look in their faces and the general sense of sexual dominance that the pic is alluding to. Furthermore they may not be the same age they are in the show but they still look a little young. Not that their age matters to the Internet. Pick any underage cartoon character and you’re guaranteed to see some pornographic pics of them with no change in age. I see this cover as appealing to those who like that stuff.

If you wish for to get a great deal from this post then you
have to apply such strategies to your won weblog.

Leave a Comment


Browse the Robot 6 Archives