Comments on Buzzfeed's real women in comic book poses

[Angelblaze]

There are lots of camel toes in comic books(Note, I don't actually read many comics on a regular basis, but from what I remember that's not at all common)?[ Because comparing secondary sexual characteristics to primary sexual characteristics is rather disingenuous.

They're both sexual characteristics, genitalia or not.

Whereas overly muscled pecs, 8-packs, hewn thighs, and biceps upon their biceps are VERY common.

Yeah, its almost like muscles measure strength or something. If breast size and perkiness were a measure of strength it wouldn't be strange to see that on a woman, but they're not. We see big butts and perky tits because they're sexually appealing to the target audience.

Further more, if we're going to claim that any male character is sexualized, we first have to examine what the majority of women within the target audience of comic books find sexy.

Key Point here: Target audience. Few major comic books written before the last 3 years have been written and drawn with the female perspective of sexuality in mind, without it somehow being played as a 'haha take that!' at a majority of male comic goers (See: Grayson). I'd say the only one that comes close is Loki: Agent of Asgard and that's recent.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's almost like comic books do fantastical things. What's next? Breaking the laws of physics?

I think the important part isn't so much that something is absurd, but rather the motivation behind it.

Um, yes, I think that was kinda the point that was being made.

 

[JimB]

Key point here: target audience. Few major comic books written before the last 3 years have been written and drawn with the female perspective of sexuality in mind, without it somehow being played as a 'haha take that!' at a majority of male comic goers (see: Grayson). I'd say the only one that comes close is Loki: Agent of Asgard and that's recent.

I'm told the run of Young Avengers by Kieron Gillen and Jamie McKelvie attempted to play to female sexual tastes as well, though honestly, I didn't even notice it. I mean, the little gray-haired dude dances in his underwear in his room, and that's something the ladies like, is it? Okay, if you guys say so.

 

[Angelblaze]

Key point here: target audience. Few major comic books written before the last 3 years have been written and drawn with the female perspective of sexuality in mind, without it somehow being played as a 'haha take that!' at a majority of male comic goers (see: Grayson). I'd say the only one that comes close is Loki: Agent of Asgard and that's recent.

I'm told the run of Young Avengers written by Kieron Gillen and Jamie McKelvie attempted to play to female sexual tastes as well, though honestly, I didn't even notice it. I mean, the little gray-haired dude dances in his underwear in his room, and that's something the ladies like, is it? Okay, if you guys say so.

(Speaking as a woman) Aside from that, the Young Avengers run wasn't too sexual really. It was more ya-novellaesque. Then again, I perfer Wiccan physically and well, completely, over Novar.

 

[Paragon Fury]

You know, I have a friend of mine who is an actual comic book artist (albeit not a famous one so far). And we've been on this exact discussion just recently: I told him it's ridiculous and kinda sexist that women in comic books get portrayed in such an innatural way; he said he likes it because it's meant to be unrealistic just as the muscles of the male characters are.

But here's what I told him, and what I am now going to say here: yes, both men and women are unreal and exaggerated in comic books.... but WHY is it that the men are exaggerated to look badass, while the women are exaggerated to look sexy?

Add to this that I prefer realism to idealized (and blank) body types, and you get the picture.

Because both men and women in fiction are designed to have exaggerated attractive sexual characteristics.

Women in fiction are designed to look like exaggerated versions of Christina Hendricks, Jessica Alba, Jessica Nigri etc. I.E. women with good figures who look healthy and able.

Men are designed to look like exaggerated versions of Chris Evans, Chris Hiemsworth, those two guys from Twilight etc. IE: men who look strong and capable of providing.

The problem is that the male version gets taken too far; artists and designers WAY overdo the guys which turns off the women, while overdoing the women doesn't turn the men off nearly as much (especially since the bust-waist-hips thing can be used to really fuck with both our heads).

"But why are women only valued for their looks and men for their abilities?!"

Long version short; because that is the unique thing that women provide for their half of the equation for the human species. Men are largely interchangeable, and thus had to prove themselves otherwise - so men's abilities became the basis on which they are valued.

*Note; that when I say "valued" I mean by the base instinct part of the brain that has to look at something and make that snap judgement on it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Further more, if we're going to claim that any male character is sexualized, we first have to examine what the majority of women within the target audience of comic books find sexy.

Key Point here: Target audience. Few major comic books written before the last 3 years have been written and drawn with the female perspective of sexuality in mind, without it somehow being played as a 'haha take that!' at a majority of male comic goers (See: Grayson). I'd say the only one that comes close is Loki: Agent of Asgard and that's recent.

Well, I think the second part sort of touches on the issue with the first part. Given that comics tend to be written with men in mind, who is it that's really sexualising these men?

Male characters have been drawn this way for a male market for decades upon decades. I'd kind of say whether or not female readers find them sexy is incidental, as female readers are generally not the target audience. The short version of this is that women in comics are drawn to appeal to men and so are men in comics.

 

[Angelblaze]

Further more, if we're going to claim that any male character is sexualized, we first have to examine what the majority of women within the target audience of comic books find sexy.

Key Point here: Target audience. Few major comic books written before the last 3 years have been written and drawn with the female perspective of sexuality in mind, without it somehow being played as a 'haha take that!' at a majority of male comic goers (See: Grayson). I'd say the only one that comes close is Loki: Agent of Asgard and that's recent.

Well, I think the second part sort of touches on the issue with the first part. Given that comics tend to be written with men in mind, who is it that's really sexualising these men?

Male characters have been drawn this way for a male market for decades upon decades. I'd kind of say whether or not female readers find them sexy is incidental, as female readers are generally not the target audience. The short version of this is that women in comics are drawn to appeal to men and so are men in comics.

To add to that, its worth pointing out that women (on average) are more affected by audio stimuli, something still motion comics inherently can't do for obvious reasons. Hence why, even with men sexualization in comics, it may not exactly be the same

Spoiler: Sources

Personal experience
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/808430
http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/281562
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Are we supposed to be outraged that so much photoshop is required to make "regular" women (chunky/overweight is more accurate) match fictional comic book characters?

Overweight, really? Not even half of them could be considered overweight. The rest have a thin figure. We just don't think its thin because people think an hourglass figure is a sign of being thin when more often than not its a sign of either starvation or dying from terminal illness. You ridicule the notion of media setting impossibly high standards in this post yet are calling most of these women fat because they actually have internal organs.

I'd also add that body type and bone structure makes a BIG difference as to how somebody looks. There are three body types:

Ectomorph - tends to look tall and thin with narrow shoulders, even when carrying some extra weight. It is VERY difficult for an ectomorph to bulk up in such a way that they reach that inverted triangle shape. I have this body type, and one of the things it means is that I have a lot of trouble buying button-down shirts that fit due to the narrow shoulders alone.

Mesomorph - tends to be the natural beautiful person body type. They tend to have broad shoulders and an inverted triangle shape for men, and a defined hourglass shape for women. They also tend to have a very easy time putting on muscle and bulking up, or dropping fat.

Endomorph - tends to look thick and stocky. They put on fat more easily, and it is harder to take it off. However, particularly with men, even when they're not overweight, their body type can make them still look stocky or barrel-shaped. So, where ectomorphs tend to look thinner than they actually are, endomorphs often look heavier than they actually are. There was a Penn & Teller Bullshit episode where they put some endomorphs and mesomorphs through their paces, and the endomorphs were actually more fit. For women, this tends to look very soft and voluptuous, particularly if one has put in a lot of training and hard work (think Jennifer Lopez, but also note that Hollywood tends to have near-unhealthy beauty standards for both women and men).

So, I'm very reluctant to make a judgement about whether somebody is overweight from pictures like in the articles, just because it could be the body type looking like something it isn't.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Once could make the argument that it's art and therefor doesn't have to be realistic.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Once could make the argument that it's art and therefor doesn't have to be realistic.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, the intention of the art matters a lot. If you're doing a highly stylized art form and the drawing looks like a highly stylized art form, then there's nothing wrong. If, on the other hand, you're doing a realistic art form and aiming for something that looks like reality, and you're drawing all the women to look like a 15 year-old boy's sexual fantasies, and all the men to look like a 15 year-old boy's sexual power fantasies, then something wrong is going on.

Frankly, hypersexualization in art bothers me a lot less when the creator just owns it - there's nothing wrong with drawing sexy women in sexy spine-breaking poses because you like sexy women in sexy spine-breaking poses. Exuberant sleaze is always better than phoned-in sleaze (for example, see Piranha 3D, which is both over-the-top sleazy and awesome fun). The pretense that you're actually trying for gritty realism while claiming that a female character has a legitimate reason for wearing something that no sane person would ever wear when fighting crime is insulting and offensive, particularly when you're supposedly reaching out to a female audience while treating female characters as sex objects.

Or, put another way, pure sleaze is fine, adult fun. Sleaze masquerading as gritty realism is a disservice to the characters and the readers.

And on a semi-related note, if you ARE going to draw your characters in poses that require spines to do things that spines do not do, you should be prepared for people to poke fun at the silliness of it all (I mention this because it really was intended as a light-hearted thread, and I'd prefer to try to keep it that way).

 

[Something Amyss]

To add to that, its worth pointing out that women (on average) are more affected by audio stimuli, something still motion comics inherently can't do for obvious reasons. Hence why, even with men sexualization in comics, it may not exactly be the same

Spoiler: Sources

Personal experience
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/808430
http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/281562
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/

I'd be inclined to agree. It's just that I don't think what women want is actually factored in. It's dudes preening for dudes in the first place. So any appeal would largely be a byproduct.

 

[NPC009]

This reminds me of the blog posts author Jim C. Hines did a few years ago. Basically, he tried to pose as the women (real, but probably heavily photoshopped women) on book covers and had a bad time. The message wasn't that it couldn't be done, but that these sexy poses were very unnatural and unpleasant.

Let's see if I can find a link... Here we go [http://www.jimchines.com/cover-posing/].

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

For a Lark, I decided to look at some male poses.

Spoiler

1.) Wolverine drawing his left leg so perfectly against his butt that it disappears, and then trying to wrap his right around the next of the hulk, while having his hips arched towards the Hulk's head and his upper and lower back is perfectly straight. All the while having his neck becoming a part of his chest it seems?

2.) Batman, being one of the most supreme human martial artists on Earth, would realize the stupidity of just using his upper back to try to pull a fighting bat beast out of the air. Batman, being one of the most intelligent people on earth, would realize he would have to use his entire lower body (which has the strongest high twitch muscle fibers and all of your core muscles for stabilizing against a fighting man bat beast) to get the most power in his pull and use his upper body to angle.

3.) Daredevil, being of the foremost martial artists of the marvel world... blah, blah, blah, there's no real grounding power in this move. I have no idea why would leave your hips center as he did unless it was just to show off his bulge. Which he does perfectly.

4.) Deadman simply broke the back of Steve Trevor

From a personal trainer standpoint, a lot of these poses are very disadvantageous and lacking power in the Kinetic Chain. From a Martial Artist standpoints, most of the moves are just down right stupid and lack power. I think it's just safe to say that comic book artists don't know what they are doing bodywise.

Will not discount the fact that they are trying to appeal to the sexy content of things. But they are also just really unaware how normal human bodies work. Which actually isn't that big of a detractor since they literally can say "Oh, that character doesn't have a regular human body"

You know, I have a friend of mine who is an actual comic book artist (albeit not a famous one so far). And we've been on this exact discussion just recently: I told him it's ridiculous and kinda sexist that women in comic books get portrayed in such an innatural way; he said he likes it because it's meant to be unrealistic just as the muscles of the male characters are.

But here's what I told him, and what I am now going to say here: yes, both men and women are unreal and exaggerated in comic books.... but WHY is it that the men are exaggerated to look badass, while the women are exaggerated to look sexy?

Add to this that I prefer realism to idealized (and blank) body types, and you get the picture.

My response to that is very much yeah, male comic book characters are the epitome of sex for some of those who are attracted to men.

Here's something I really never knew in all my years of practicing martial arts: There's a large contingent of women who are attracted to men who know how to fight. Understand, I'm not saying guys who go out and look for fights over every little thing. I'm talking about guys who can defend themselves.

Now, the question becomes were the men specifically designed that way to turn on a woman? I am 50-50 on that. Simply because they are rippling with muscles and all are usually devastatingly handsome. But that's what we're programmed to think the Alpha males (the ones who are in charge and are likely to be the heroes) are supposed to be and look like. That just so happens to be what we teach girls to find attractive, and ergo do subsequently find attractive.

I think most artists would look exactly like their characters if they could. Because they know that women would respond and desire that character in real life. So, yeah, there's some obvious efforts to make men to be attractive.

Every time I see that Spider-Woman pose used for an article, video, or whatever like this, it just makes me sigh. Not just because she's doing a pose that Spider-Man has also done on a cover, but the simple fact that Spider-Man has done tons of ridiculous poses, often highlighting his ass and crotch in comics.

I mean, yes, this is certainly an issue, but I would say that the Spider-_ are fairly equal in this regard.

Add that to the fact that most of the Spider family can move their musculature and joints in a fashion that normal humans simply can't replicate, and it just adds up to a poor choice as an example and a knee jerk reaction.

If I can't do the poses of a gymnast, I can't say that they are unreasonable. I have my lack of conditioning as a gymnast to blame for that. If I can't move like a snake, I can't say they are impossible. I'm just not set up like a snake. They have a very real point, but they are doing it in a way that's very, very damning. Comic book geeks can rightfully point out that most of these women aren't even human in the same standards we know (Freaking Diana was made out of clay!). And those who aren't in the know will think we are just trying to protect our way of thinking.

Both sides will think they are valid and no understanding will come from this.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Once could make the argument that it's art and therefor doesn't have to be realistic.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, the intention of the art matters a lot. If you're doing a highly stylized art form and the drawing looks like a highly stylized art form, then there's nothing wrong. If, on the other hand, you're doing a realistic art form and aiming for something that looks like reality, and you're drawing all the women to look like a 15 year-old boy's sexual fantasies, and all the men to look like a 15 year-old boy's sexual power fantasies, then something wrong is going on.

Frankly, hypersexualization in art bothers me a lot less when the creator just owns it - there's nothing wrong with drawing sexy women in sexy spine-breaking poses because you like sexy women in sexy spine-breaking poses. Exuberant sleaze is always better than phoned-in sleaze (for example, see Piranha 3D, which is both over-the-top sleazy and awesome fun). The pretense that you're actually trying for gritty realism while claiming that a female character has a legitimate reason for wearing something that no sane person would ever wear when fighting crime is insulting and offensive, particularly when you're supposedly reaching out to a female audience while treating female characters as sex objects.

Or, put another way, pure sleaze is fine, adult fun. Sleaze masquerading as gritty realism is a disservice to the characters and the readers.

And on a semi-related note, if you ARE going to draw your characters in poses that require spines to do things that spines do not do, you should be prepared for people to poke fun at the silliness of it all (I mention this because it really was intended as a light-hearted thread, and I'd prefer to try to keep it that way).

I thought I was being Devil's Advocate. Oh well whatever. In any case, are superhero comics really aiming for a realistic depiction of reality though? I know some of the Anime though was brought up on that eshergirls page certainly aren't. I don't know. I don't read comics and I don't know what the comic artist's intentions are.

I do agree however that hypersexualization is better if it's taken tongue in cheek. It's like the guy who drew the art for Dragon's Crown. He just openly admitted that he just liked big boobs and that's why he drew the sorceress that way. No beating around the bush.

 

[1981]

http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/281562

The study didn't include men, so no comparison can be made.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/

"Women who viewed clips from erotic films made by women or men reported higher levels of sexual arousal to the woman-made films". I'm not surprised. My disdain for these types of studies is so strong that what surprised me is that they even thought of that.

If you asked men to assess their locker room erections, I suspect they'd report a high "incongruence between cognitive and physiological arousal".

"Previous studies have used women taking oral contraceptives" which commonly cause reduced or even absent libido.

Wow, your obtuseness in the face of evidence that your supposition of female figures having their secondary sexual characteristics emphasized more then male figures secondary sexual characteristics was completely and utterly wrong is flat out amazing. That's like saying that piss and diarrhea are both bodily waste products. True, but completely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that male secondary sexual characteristics are just as exaggerated, if not more so, than female secondary sexual characteristics. End discussion. You want to start whining that women don't find the same exaggeration attractive, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

You pick random words and use their dictionary definitions as arguments with no explanation of how they relate to the matter at hand. Women's breasts are far more sexualized than men's chests. That's why breasts need to be covered up in situations where men can go topless. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, or that it should change. It's just how it is. Also, we're talking about comic book action poses, not PowerPoint presentations of human anatomy. Body language can convey something different in two poses even when the same body parts are visible.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

My response to that is very much yeah, male comic book characters are the epitome of sex for some of those who are attracted to men.

Here's something I really never knew in all my years of practicing martial arts: There's a large contingent of women who are attracted to men who know how to fight. Understand, I'm not saying guys who go out and look for fights over every little thing. I'm talking about guys who can defend themselves.

Now, the question becomes were the men specifically designed that way to turn on a woman? I am 50-50 on that. Simply because they are rippling with muscles and all are usually devastatingly handsome. But that's what we're programmed to think the Alpha males (the ones who are in charge and are likely to be the heroes) are supposed to be and look like. That just so happens to be what we teach girls to find attractive, and ergo do subsequently find attractive.

I think most artists would look exactly like their characters if they could. Because they know that women would respond and desire that character in real life. So, yeah, there's some obvious efforts to make men to be attractive.

Excuse me, but trust me when I say those male superheroes are generally NOT meant to be sexually attractive. They are meant to be strong; they are meant to be what a straight man wishes to be - but in no way they are meant to be sexy for women.
Some women out there might find them attractive; that does not mean that Hulk or Cable are designed specifically to be sexually appealing. Yes, even with all those bulging muscles.
While female characters are designed specifically to be sexually appealing.

Both characters, male and female, are exagerated. But there is absolutely no doubt the males are designed for power, the women for sexyness. And that's the point here. That's why superhero comic books used to be a boy's yard until a few years ago.

Google "Power is Sexy". A lot of your points sort of contradict each other.

My point is while comic book writers didn't go out of their way of saying "I need to turn on women with this cover of batman!", they are still drawing in cues of what is considered to be Attractive and Powerful.

Why do Straight Men wish to be Powerful, strong, and commanding? Simple. Women respond to it. Women like it. If a man can get a woman by being geeky, scrawny, and poor... gyms would close, clothing store will only have t-shirts and jeans, and all fortune 500 CEOs would have double x's. While the position of women's gender roles have changed, the male gender role still remains the same: Be Strong, Be Reliable, Be Ready to Provide.

The Hulk has muscles, but he is not in control. He's a mindless beast... and yeah, there are some women into it.

Exploitation and Titillation is very, very real in comic books. I simply state it goes both ways. Why I don't find a rippling six back and broad shoulders attractive, it's true that a majority of women do so. Also, it's true that a lot of women just don't for looks. A good deal need the charisma, the commanding and controlled nature that oozes out of a lot of these male leads. Designed to be so. Batman, Martian Manhunter, Thor, Superman, Wolverine, Cyclops, Catman, Namor, Aquaman, Iron Man, Captain America, Deathstroke, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Black Panther, Nightwing, Daredevil, Angel, John Constantine, Doctor Doom, Black Blot, Doc Samson... It actually might be easier just to list the characters who DON'T fit the stereotype.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

double post. I think this is my first one. Yay for first!

 

[Therumancer]

It should also be noted that what's missing from this argument is actual super-powers. For example Spider-Woman has enhanced physical abilities that go beyond the norm and is mutated into a part spider, leading to her assuming spider-like poses with some frequency, Spider-Man does the same thing. Black Widow is a former ballerina who is also supposed to be a perfect physical specimen on the level of multiple Olympic athletes wrapped into one. To me it looks like Wonder Woman, who I might add is an immortal super-being with physical abilities well beyond the norm, is supposed to be off balance in that picture so it's not so much a "pose", I could be wrong but it seems like Storm might be about to fly which means she's literally defying gravity.

I'm sure there are counter-arguments, but the point is that humans aren't supposed to be able to measure up to super humans. They are called "Super heroes" even the ones that aren't supposed to have actual "powers" for a reason. It's also pretty co-ed when it comes to silliness, I mean consider the contortion Spider-Man uses every time he fires his web shooters.

When it comes to Spider-Man I believe the very old individual issue "Guide to the marvel universe" series actually listed physical elasticity as part of his power set going back a long time. Now to be fair that particular "Spider Person" has a different power set involving bio-energy manipulation and pheromones among other things, but also has the enhanced physical abilities so I'd guess some of that transfers over and showing her in spider-like poses, especially seductive ones given that she's literally superhumanly attractive and a sexual predator (even if she tries to control this to some extent) is appropriate, I mean she's basically part spider.