In the worst case scenario regarding prostitution, you are talking about women who are trafficked and exploited, and using prostitute as shorthand for something to be despised is dehumanizing.

In the best case scenario, you are talking about people who are taking part in an activity that is perfectly legal if money is not exchanged, but is somehow horrible and illegal if money changes hands. Meanwhile, porn is a billion dollar industry, which means a lot of people are enjoying watching people getting paid to have sex, while simultaneously turning up their noses at people getting paid to have sex. Which makes using prostitute as shorthand for something to be despised as hypocritical.

But everyone is free to use the word prostitute. Whore is a little bit more loaded, but no one is asking you not to use that word either.

-------------------------------------------

I think this is very true of the businesses that produce comics, books, movies, tv shows, etc. Clearly it varies from person to person, but I think it is less true for the creators who work on these products.

There are numerous examples of creators whose careers are driven far more by art for art's sake approach than scoring their next hit, as there are numerous examples of those who will fart out anything in the hopes of making some money. Interestingly I can easily think of paradigms of each type for other art forms (cinema: Ingmar Bergman vs Uwe Bol; Novels: Harper Lee vs Michael Patterson), but in the case of comics, Steve Ditko would be a good example of someone driven by other forces than sales, but no name springs readily to mind as a writer or artist mainly (or purely) driven by chasing sales. I'm sure they exist, of course.

As to your comment about creators themselves, I agree...to a point.  There are those rare creators that don't care about the sale but only about the art.  Ditko is obviously one of them.  But even creators who have ambitions higher than churning out work day in and out have to worry themselves about the sales as well.  Maybe not as much as others, but they do nonetheless.  It's what puts food on the table, 'natch, but also can aide in the creation itself in that sometimes art for art's sake can be a masturbatory exercise if you catch my drift.  Many are the times a creator in any medium sat down to do their best job possible without thinking that what they were creating was "art" or would have any lasting appeal beyond that month or year. I think people can get caught up in the trap of trying to create "art" instead of just expressing themselves the best way they know how and letting the chips fall where they may. For instance, instead of trying to write "the next great American novel", just write a story that is interesting and compelling.  Let future generations decide if that story is transcendent. 

-----

For a private commission. If he were portraying Superman in an ACTUAL DC comic, then it'd be an issue.

I'm curious, what were the responses to Wally Wood's Disney orgy and Curt Swan's "Superman" illustrations for Penthouse?

***

Which was then posted publicly.  You don't find "I hate Superman, so watch me piss all over him!" rather tacky?

-----

Sure. But why does it matter if he's not drawing the Superman comic? And even if he were drawing the Superman comic, why would his attitude matter if it wasn't apparent in his work?

***

Has someone said it matters?  Genuine question, because following this thread I feel like there's a huge disconnect.  I don't recall anyone calling for Cho to be tarred and feathered, or drummed out of the comic book industry.  He posted something controversial, people responded.

I keep seeing this re-framed as "It's only his opinion" but it's beyond that.

"I hate Superman."  Who cares?

"I hate Superman, so I decline all offers to draw him."  Good for you.

"I hate Superman, so watch me take a big dump on him publicly!"  You're kind of a jerk.