Comments on Buzzfeed's real women in comic book poses

[I can't enter my old name]

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.

Ah yes, the power fantasy argument.

Is it not possible that women do not strive for the exaggerated body depicted? If men are a power fantasy, is it not possible that women can be a fantasy of beauty and femininity? I'm not saying this is a healthy attitude to have, but it certainly is possible. I know that these comic books are made for the male audience, and the perspective is limited, but let's think about heroes. If a male hero is powerful, an artist would think something to differentiate him with the common man, something like "So powerful he is like a Greek god or ubermensch." If a woman is a hero, the artist would think "So beautiful she is like a goddess, or fierce like a Valkyrie." It be a conclusion drawn from association with culture. It is very limited thinking, but the artist is not some pervert.

Things are distorted for a pleasing image. For a more scientific explanation, these artists deliberately or undeliberately create a caricature of the male or female form when they optimize for aesthetic pleasantness. The average male body is subtracted from the average female body (or vice versa) and the difference is amplified. The result for women is exaggerated breasts, hip ratio, round buttocks and feminine positions gone anatomically incorrect. You can see this in sculptures of Greek or Indian goddesses. For men, it's muscle tone, broad shoulders, not much hip going on, but not necessarily bulky, which can also be seen in art. By exaggerating the male or female characteristics, we have amplified how male or female someone looks, which can be a function of reproductive hormones. So what we have is super masculine men, interesting to look at for men, and super attractive to women when not ovulating. We also have super feminine women, also interesting to look at for women, and super attractive to men.

 

[Silvanus]

By exaggerating the male or female characteristics, we have amplified how male or female someone looks, which can be a function of reproductive hormones. So what we have is super masculine men, interesting to look at for men, and super attractive to women when not ovulating. We also have super feminine women, also interesting to look at for women, and super attractive to men.

Do you think the depictions of men in comic books are actually super-attractive to women? I doubt it pretty strongly. It seems a rather one-sided equation to me.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

By exaggerating the male or female characteristics, we have amplified how male or female someone looks, which can be a function of reproductive hormones. So what we have is super masculine men, interesting to look at for men, and super attractive to women when not ovulating. We also have super feminine women, also interesting to look at for women, and super attractive to men.

Do you think the depictions of men in comic books are actually super-attractive to women? I doubt it pretty strongly. It seems a rather one-sided equation to me.

I don't know, I don't read comics. What comes to my head during these arguments is Superman and his gigantic barrel chest. In my opinion he is comically muscular it becomes less attractive. What I think women find attractive is sculptures of Greek gods or Michelangelo's David. I'm not a woman, so I wouldn't know. However, not all male superheroes are superman levels of muscular, and some can fit into that category.

It seems tone is the more visually appealing aspect instead of muscular hypertrophy, at least cultural standards withheld. A primitive man probably cannot have the body builder shape solely by lifting heavy things once in a while. So I think the bulky superheroes come from the exaggeration of physique as power. It is also reasonable to think that larger muscles are required to win fights consistently. I always thought that the reason these male superheroes are gigantic, is we think that they have to be in order to survive if we ignore their super power. Also, since women are not frequently in combat, we don't really have much to draw on for what a female fighter would look like. All I can think of on the top of my head is Boudicca, shield maidens, and really sexy goddesses.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Well, it's Buzzfeed.

That's really all you need to know before clicking on the thing.

Also, "Warning: This post contains photoshopped images of bodies that some may find triggering."

Sincerely. Fuck these simpering, weak-willed sacks of flesh.

Ugh. Nobody tell these folks about the Shaft Tilt or, really, anime in general. They'd have an aneurysm.

"I have visually identified you as an acceptable sexual partner" is not a very good pick-up line. Humans do not work that way.

I dunno. I'd get pretty damp if a girl said that to me in a bar.

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.

None of them have a "thin" figure. 1-3 are about average.

4, 6, and possibly 5, depending on her height, are clearly overweight.

None of them are gymnasts or, you know, superheroes with toned, athletic builds.

 

[Silvanus]

I don't know, I don't read comics. What comes to my head during these arguments is Superman and his gigantic barrel chest. In my opinion he is comically muscular it becomes less attractive. What I think women find attractive is sculptures of Greek gods or Michelangelo's David. I'm not a woman, so I wouldn't know. However, not all male superheroes are superman levels of muscular, and some can fit into that category.

I can only speak from experience, of course. I read a fair number of comics (though I'm nowhere near as voracious as some), and I'm into guys. It's pretty rare to come across something I'd consider either attractive, or tailored towards that interest (though one example that does come to mind is Nightwing).

It seems tone is the more visually appealing aspect instead of muscular hypertrophy, at least cultural standards withheld. A primitive man probably cannot have the body builder shape solely by lifting heavy things once in a while. So I think the bulky superheroes come from the exaggeration of physique as power. It is also reasonable to think that larger muscles are required to win fights consistently. I always thought that the reason these male superheroes are gigantic, is we think that they have to be in order to survive if we ignore their super power. Also, since women are not frequently in combat, we don't really have much to draw on for what a female fighter would look like. All I can think of on the top of my head is Boudicca, shield maidens, and really sexy goddesses.

I'd generally agree that that's why we see excessively muscular male superheroes. However, even when we have female superheroes, it's never exaggerated to anywhere near the same extent, and we still get all those ass-shots. This is even when the woman is ostensibly cast in a similar role as the men, such as Wonder Woman, Giganta or Wasp.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Well, yes, but I think he inadvertently has a point--these images are what men think women find attractive. And considering the list of people arguing in here seems to be similar to virtually every thread about "what women want," it's not surprising there's a spillover in those terms, either.

Effectively, it's men telling women what they find sexy because it's what they find sexy.

For comparison, here is the same exact character, when she is designed to be a sexual fantasy:

Spoiler

Is...is she supposed to be attractive in this?

 

[I can't enter my old name]

I'd generally agree that that's why we see excessively muscular male superheroes. However, even when we have female superheroes, it's never exaggerated to anywhere near the same extent, and we still get all those ass-shots. This is even when the woman is ostensibly cast in a similar role as the men, such as Wonder Woman, Giganta or Wasp.

I agree that there is heavy sexualization of women because it is aimed at men, and probably drawn by men. When a male artist has to draw the form of the breast or the buttocks, most likely it will be to the proportion of he finds appealing. It makes sense to draw what is aesthetically appealing and imitate that, and discard what doesn't work or looks unbalanced. A male's idea of balance and proportion could differ from a female artist.

I think muscular women didn't become a thing because it would drastically throw off the proportion of the female form. I think most female superheroes are thin and toned with large breasts, which is because of exaggeration of said form. However, for a muscular superhero like She-Hulk (who isn't really that muscular compared to male superheroes), you can notice that her breasts are gigantic. If they weren't as large and prominent, then her body would look like a man's body. The size of the breasts have to be exaggerated so at first glance you would think, yes this is a woman. Some depictions have the hourglass figure, but they tone down her muscle size. Balance wise if she has giant muscles everywhere but puny external obliques, she would look top-heavy and the proportions would look extremely unnatural.

 

[maninahat]

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.

I wouldn't say they're equal, because although Spiderman does do a lot of squatting and crawling, those aren't conventionally sexy poses for men. A woman squatting with her legs open is an FHM pose - but a guy doing the same thing isn't exactly what you'd expect from a Burt Reynolds photoshoot. With spiderman, you can be fairly confident the writers weren't aiming to put him in a sexy pose for the benefit of a presumed straight female audience.

Burt Reynolds? That's the most relevant sex symbol you can think of? Zac Efron? Ryan Gosling? Ryan Reynolds?

Not touching this debate with a ten foot pole, I'm just very disappointed in you.

I don't know, kids today...Back in my day, Burt Reynolds was the yard stick for everything, from sensible mustache growth, to the appropriate way to back hand your colleagues.

 

[Jingle Fett]

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?
The real outrage is the amount of photoshop it takes to make Bruce Willis match Homer Simpson!!!!

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.

Is there a point you want me to respond to or are you just angry because of the proximity of the word overweight to the word women? Because regardless my point still stands.

If you re-read my post, you'll see that I wasn't ridiculing the notion of the media setting impossibly high standards. I was ridiculing the notion of humans comparing themselves to fictional cartoon characters and getting upset that it can't be reached by the average person (let alone overweight ones).
Women 4,5, and 6 are all overweight and 2 is on the heavier side of average.

Secondly you're being really judgemental and offensive, not to mention culturally insensitive to say that hourglass/thin "more often than not it's a sign of either starvation or dying". Frankly it says more about you than anything else. Believe it or not, but the whole world doesn't share your american/western european 68% obesity rate and where the average woman weighs 166 pounds.

 

[JimB]

Is...is she supposed to be attractive in this?

Never underestimate how much the male mind can compartmentalize when it comes to sexual attraction. Yes, she's a half-human freak who should be dead because her waist is more narrow in circumference than her skull and therefore cannot possibly hold all the organs she needs to continue to live, and yes, she's covered in verminous rodents who have surely spread lice and parasites throughout her, but DEM TITTIES, YO

Seriously, I'm not even kidding. I have no idea if it's trained, inherent, or both, but my general experience is that a man is very much more capable of breaking a woman down into component parts and focusing on individual pieces divorced from the whole than a woman tends to be capable of, or at least more than she tends to be inclined to do.

 

[josemlopes]

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.

I wouldn't say they're equal, because although Spiderman does do a lot of squatting and crawling, those aren't conventionally sexy poses for men. A woman squatting with her legs open is an FHM pose - but a guy doing the same thing isn't exactly what you'd expect from a Burt Reynolds photoshoot. With spiderman, you can be fairly confident the writers weren't aiming to put him in a sexy pose for the benefit of a presumed straight female audience.

Actually its not the writters but the artists and when drawing a character that might as well be naked since the suit is so damn tight it doesnt matter if its supposed to look sexy or not, the character will be in his peak with an interesting pose, and since its a character more connected to agility and speed he will certainly have a more "sexy" pose to show off how bendy and agile he is. Basicly the sexy look isnt the cause but the symptom.

 

[Toilet]

I think I did a pretty half decent job for someone not very adept at photoshop. Could have put more effort in the thighs though.

Spoiler

]

 

[Paragon Fury]

"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.

Wait, can you please elaborate this? Because before snapping at you for this comment, I want to make sure I didn't just misunderstand completely.

You're saying that in our very biology, women are valued for their looks and men for their skills? That men are interchangeable, i.e. it doesn't matter how they look?
...Or did I just make a gross misunderstanding of your comment?

While I unfortunately no longer have access to the article/paper that explains this much better than I can, the best way I could condense it is this;

Females and males were both equally judged by their physical appearance in the past because physical appearance illustrated a woman/man's ability to fulfill their part of the equation for continuing the survival of the species - females for carrying, giving birth to and nurturing children; males for protecting and providing for the women while they were vulnerable and at risk while doing so and in general doing tasks that you don't want women of child bearing age doing while survival is your #1 goal.

Then civilization "happened" (obviously not overnight, but just for illustration's sake) and suddenly a male's physical appearance was no longer the key element; thanks to the advent of things like trade, mass agriculture, artisans etc. a male could provide all of his portion of the survival deal without looking anything like what had been accepted for thousands of years. While the old ideal was (and still is) striven for, it was no longer the end-all-be-all; Gordon Freeman now had as much of a chance as Hunky McBearStrangler.

Unfortunately for females, the advent of civilization did not have the same effect. Up until basically 150 years ago a woman's physical appearance and build was important factor #1 in her ability to fulfill her unique half of the survival equation; it was/is literally life or death for her. Hell, even today in most modern medical facilities available women and children still die in childbirth and there is squat medical science can do about it. Your doctor can still take one look at your physical build if you're a woman and tell you in no uncertain terms that you should not give natural childbirth for your own safety.

Which means that while females have had thousands of years to get out of the habit of physicality meaning everything in males, for males female physical appearance is still important.

Even if it weren't, we're now being expected to act like it isn't in less time than we elect Presidents for.

As for the "men are expendable part"...its basically that females and males are basically the same outside of their reproductive functions, so because the male reproductive function is exponentially more active and lasts significantly longer than the female reproductive function the male must either seek to put himself notably above his peers, or eliminate them.

Essentially the notable, consistent throughout all periods of history and cross-cultural patterns of males being more aggressive, combative and competitive than females is because is because females can only hold the..."capabilities" of X men, and males have to fight to be one of the X or get left completely out and fail the only unique part in human survival they're capable of fulfilling.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Secondly you're being really judgemental and offensive, not to mention culturally insensitive to say that hourglass/thin "more often than not it's a sign of either starvation or dying". Frankly it says more about you than anything else. Believe it or not, but the whole world doesn't share your american/western european 68% obesity rate and where the average woman weighs 166 pounds.

Did you know that an "hourglass" figure isn't obtainable naturally, it's not a question of BMI either, anyone of average weight can do it, you just need to wear a corset so tight you can't breathe.

 

[Politrukk]

I see people talking about these looks "not being common".

If you ever thought superheroines were common I can see where you might be getting into cognitive troubles.

 

[Ryan Minns]

I tried to do a spiderman pose and now I need to see a chiropractor