Is it time to retire the term "Bondage Cover" like we did with "headlights"? 4 4

[Robot Man]

Does one really need a term to describe this one?

Wertham said it fine... "Sexual stimulation by combining "headlights" with the sadist's dream of tying up a woman".

Although, I don't think kids of the time were quite that sophisticated.

You don't want to know what I paid for it back in the '70's...

[Ken Aldred]

2 hours ago, www.alexgross.com said:

yes, it's embarrassing that racism and sexism were so prevalent for so long in comics. but we should not and cannot erase history

We learn from history to prevent future repetition. Hopefully.

That’s always the point.

Edited August 22, 2020 by Ken Aldred

[kav]

53 minutes ago, Robot Man said:

When I hear derogatory terms used, I think about the person who is using it. Usually ignorant, scared or down right nasty people looking for a reaction. I don’t like or respect them so it doesn’t hurt me. I consider the source and I actually pity them. I was raised better. When you react to them, you slide into their dirty pit they call life. 

Getting offended, to me, shows weakness.  No one can offend me.  I make my decisions based upon what they do or say but running to tell mommy that someone offended me-nope.  

[Doctor Dositheus]

3 hours ago, kav said:

I think the term is fine-it describes a certain genre which was purposely used to sell comics to kids.  Old movies and serials had women forever being tied up and put on the train tracks and stuff.  It was a cliche, much like movies nowadays where the good guy can only get shot in the shoulder, and usually laughs abt it.

I had never thought about it that way before, but that is interesting. It was definitely a movie trope of it's time, and a part of popular storytelling.

Lots of good food for thought in this thread. "Injury to the eye" seems like sort of the same argument. I'm not offended, on the other hand it seems superfluous, like putting "Superman flies throught the air cover" on the label.

[F For Fake]

1 hour ago, Robot Man said:

I remember when these notations were first coined. These two along with “Injury to the eye”, “decapitation”, “esoteric” and others were first used by David T Alexander, Terry Stroud and Carl Macek of the American Comic Book Company in CA in the mid 1970’s. These terms were applied to slow moving books in their inventory. The ploy obviously worked and now these terms are universally used (sometimes a stretch) in our hobby. 

These terms have turned many books that no one cared about in the mid 1970’s into iconic books that bring nosebleed prices. 

None of these terms bother me in the least. If you don’t like books like this, don’t buy them. They are in the eye of the buyer. I have always known books like many of these were unique, different and sometimes hard to get. Now, quite expensive in many cases.

And, so glad I bought into the hype back then...

This was what I was going to bring up. I have always thought "headlight" and "bondage" covers were quaint and amusing, in a charming, old fashioned way. A little naughty, a little smutty, ultimately harmless.

But the one sub-genre I never got was eye injury! Who is seeking that out, exactly? Yikes.

[F For Fake]

"I'm into boobs!" 

Well, sure, I mean, most people are, one way or another.

"I'm into people being tied up!"

Ok, well, I guess so. Whatever turns your crank.

"I'M INTO PEOPLE HAVING NEEDLES SHOVED INTO THEIR EYES."

:backs away slowly:

[kav]

1 minute ago, F For Fake said:

"I'm into boobs!" 

Well, sure, I mean, most people are, one way or another.

"I'm into people being tied up!"

Ok, well, I guess so. Whatever turns your crank.

"I'M INTO PEOPLE HAVING NEEDLES SHOVED INTO THEIR EYES."

:backs away slowly:

bingo

[Juno Beach]

3 hours ago, www.alexgross.com said:

'bondage' is not gender specific, nor derogatory. though it often involves tied up ladies, plenty of male characters (Bucky's main job) got tied up too. it is unlike the term "headlights" which obviously has plenty of sexist baggage attached.

on a related note, judging the content of creations from 30, 50, or 70 years ago based on today's accepted social mores is a fool's errand. yes, it's embarrassing that racism and sexism were so prevalent for so long in comics. but we should not and cannot erase history, and we should not attempt to cancel creators or their works from past eras whose ethics reflected the general standards of their own time. 

now, whoever decided that the african american kid in spidey 252 (1984) should be made white on the cover, that person i have some questions for. 

Honest question - are there covers featuring Bucky annotated as a bondage cover?

[Comics4All]

I'm just in before the lock,,,,

 

[Comics4All]

1 minute ago, Juno Beach said:

Honest question - are there covers featuring Bucky annotated as a bondage cover?

Not sure about Bucky, but look at these Liefeld headlights!

 

[bc]

2 minutes ago, Juno Beach said:

Honest question - are there covers featuring Bucky annotated as a bondage cover?

Here's one for Toro

-bc

[Doctor Dositheus]

4 minutes ago, bc said:

Here's one for Toro

-bc

I wonder what Sigmund Freud would say about this cover.

[kav]

7 minutes ago, Doctor Dositheus said:

I wonder what Sigmund Freud would say about this cover.

PLENTY

[Lazyboy]

29 minutes ago, Doctor Dositheus said:

on the other hand it seems superfluous, like putting "Superman flies throught the air cover" on the label.

Exactly. It's one thing to have it in a text advertisement or book listing, but if you can see the label, you should be able to see the cover.

[kav]

Most ridiculous comic book bondage panels of all time?

[alexgross.com]

2 hours ago, Juno Beach said:

Honest question - are there covers featuring Bucky annotated as a bondage cover?

yep!

 

[kav]

29 minutes ago, www.alexgross.com said:

yep!

 

If bad guys ever just immediatley killed their enemies once they had em instead of tyin em up and leavin em there would be a total of zero superheroes left.

[James J Johnson]

8 hours ago, Murphman13 said:

Headlights has been retired?

Sure. You didn't get the memo? Its been cancelled and replaced by "Bazooms".    

[James J Johnson]

4 hours ago, kav said:

PLENTY

Freud would probably say that although from outward appearance, being held captive by restraint, without consent, for any reason other than gratification, for both the captor and the prisoner is not bondage, in the sense that most attribute it to "play-acting". The real thing, someone purposefully being held against their will by restraining equipment is just that; being held captive, and not a mutually gratifying endeavor.

[wombat]

I had no idea these terms were actually used on CGC labels. Seems silly to me.