Maybe I am a prude...or maybe I'm going up or maybe I'm right

[Labyrinth]

That's an issue that stems purely from our societies labelling of things.

Whether the intent is there not isn't the issue. How is that a woman showing skin is detrimental to their sexes image, but a man walking around in what amounts to underwear and a cape is the height of masculinity?

How is Catwoman over sexualised and Batman is not?

If you remove the cape there really isn't all that much of a difference in the way the costume fits the character.

More or less everyone in comics etc are sexualised to the point of ridiculousness. That's kind of the point in them. Whether we like to admit that or not.

To answer the first point, it's because women are valued first (and occasionally only) as sex objects while the last thing that men are valued for is their status as such. I don't think that there's a grand advantage to the male position given the impact it has on self esteem, but I have my suspicions that it beats being female. More over, it's an -inequality-. I wish it wasn't the case, but hey.

Catwoman is sexualised in her behaviour as much as her outfit. How many BDSM cliches are there in that character after all? Batman is not characterised sexually in the way he behaves. If you took all the male/masculine characters and all the female/feminine characters, the latter would contain much more sexual imagery, allusion and pandering than the former.

T&A sell after all.

Personally, I'd like to see more sexy men around. Would be nice.

 

[rutger5000]

The necessity of clothing is a cultural construct, naked is how humans were built to be.
If you get offended by skin, fair enough, but I think the onus is on you to shield your eyes.

That, and skin sells things very well, cause it looks nice.

That's completly false. Humans were built to have a nice fur, then that wasn't enough anymore and we needed clothes to survive. Then the fur become ussless so we lost it.

What's that smell?
Oh, right it's your bullshit.
Humans evolved to live in warm climes, and used clothing as a tool to exist in colder climes, the necessity of clothing to 'cover up' and be 'decent' is a social construct. Look at tribes in hot countries, many of them go naked/mostly naked, even if they are considered 'not decent' without a belt, or some body paint.

Damm I was wrong there, first we lost our fur then we invented clothes. Not the other way around. Yeah I feel stupid now.

 

[Eusebius]

What's that smell?
Oh, right it's your bullshit.
Humans evolved to live in warm climes, and used clothing as a tool to exist in colder climes, the necessity of clothing to 'cover up' and be 'decent' is a social construct. Look at tribes in hot countries, many of them go naked/mostly naked, even if they are considered 'not decent' without a belt, or some body paint.

Claiming that tribal groups or early man don't have the same cultural values as modern-day Western society is both obvious and beside the point. So is the idea that we are evolutionarily supposed to be naked (which seems a problematic point nonetheless). There may or may not be anything morally wrong with nudity or partial nudity. It may be arbitrary to dislike it. However, the fact is that society DOES have certain standards for appropriate and inappropriate behavior. You can't just ignore that or dismiss it - however arbitrary those standards may seem, most people care about them and the way we process and interpret imagery of all kinds is influenced by and informed by our social context.

Also, it is a separate point whether this image is sexualized, and what that might mean. Several people have pointed out that imagery, particularly in video game marketing, is targeted toward a male audience and intended to titillate. The image in the OP is clearly displaying her breasts and she is posed in a sexually suggestive way. Is this wrong? Perhaps not in of itself, but again, as a part of a social context, it can be interpreted as exploitative of women, denigrating, insulting, and supportive of a sexist mindset that harms both men and women. You can't just dismiss social context because you see it as arbitrary; that is irrelevant: an image like this will be interpreted in certain ways because social context informs our reality. The effects are real.

 

[Thespian]

So like I said. It's an issue that stems purely from social convention and societies labelling.

Sex is more of a weapon to women than it is a detriment. And that's why Catwoman comes off as pandering. Because she uses her seductive 'allure' to knock men off guard. When's the last time a man could try that and get away with it?

But yea, I suppose there could be more sexualised men in comics. But the reason you don't get them as overtly characterised as you do some women is because the stories are usually written by heterosexual men. I couldn't write a book that had a hyper sexualised man in it, because it wouldn't feel natural for me to write it.

No offense, but that means you are limited as a writer. I'm not saying that to be derogatory towards you, my point is that comic writers should be skilled at writing, since literature is their job.
I mean, personally I write a lot of little projects here and there, and despite being gay and finding women not even the least bit attractive, I am quite capable of writing a female character who uses her sexuality alluringly and openly.
In fact, it's harder to do so with men, since I can get carried away with it (since it's natural and my own sexuality indicates towards my doing so) and get too caught up in the sexual aspect and neglect some of the actual character development.
You can imagine then why, as a heterosexual man, you would not enjoy reading that piece which centers around an over-sexualized male, since the sexual aspect of it is unappealing to you and the actual character development is lacking. Thus, it makes the character boring and uninteresting to you in all aspects.

Congratulations, you now know how I feel whenever I see a female character in a comic or otherwise who prances around in her undergarments moaning suggestively (see poison ivy, batman: arkham asylum) - Bored. Hence I much preferred Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman to the pathetic, bland, male-pandering version of catwoman we saw in the Arkham City trailer. Pfeiffer's version had real character, she was twisted and demented, whilst retaining sexuality, which there's nothing wrong with.

(And for the record, batman's costume - Daaamn that thing is tight)

 

[mcnally86]

The necessity of clothing is a cultural construct, naked is how humans were built to be.
If you get offended by skin, fair enough, but I think the onus is on you to shield your eyes.

That, and skin sells things very well, cause it looks nice.

Humans are not build to be naked. You ever seen a grown man running naked? It looks very silly and can cause injuries. And I know someone women who would knock their own teeth out.

 

[Ampersand]

This seems really silly to me, there's no reason for really men or women to be ashamed of their bodies, people should be aloud to wear what they like. As for fictional men and women, come on now his shouldn't even be an issue.

 

[Blatherscythe]

Eh I don't mind. I just don't like it if they actually fight in that, I can see that for leather and cloth armors, but when a girl playing a warrior gets a chain-mail bikini for armor or plate with giant gaps in it I find it rather stupid. Then again it's just as stupid as a guy wearing so much plate armor that he shouldn't be able to move. Maybe they should add an option in games with armor on how you want it to look, sexy, practical or massive. Casual attire however, doesn't matter because you aren't in combat.

However if you want to take oversexualization and make it a selling point, you get this piece of shit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onechanbara:_Bikini_Samurai_Squad

Even IGN hated it.

 

[Ca3zar416]

Like many others have said it all depends on the context of the game and how it's presented. I do think there is a bit too much of it but I am hoping that the medium matures a bit over time. Of course EA manages to just make me sigh a lot of the time with their marketing.

 

[Thespian]

Most writers write what interests them.

If you're not interested in doinking dudes you're not likely to write a male character that is overtly doinkable.

And Pfeiffer's catwoman was easily the most sexualised. She was also the best and most interesting. But she was still the most sexualised iteration of catwoman that there has ever been.

(And for the record, batman's costume - Daaamn that thing is tight)

That's kind of been my point from the get go. Spool through a few comments back.

Yes, most writers write what interests them, but that doesn't mean they can't write what doesn't. Moreover, it certainly doesn't mean they can't use something they aren't thoroughly interested in to advance their story nonetheless. And perhaps most importantly, a writer doesn't have to find an attractive member of a certain gender attractive to find them interesting.

Yes Pfeiffer's catwoman was highly sexualised, but that's sorta my point - She was the best and most interesting as you said, whilst being sexualised at the same time. My point is, a character can be both, but just being sexy isn't enough to build a character on.

And I know that was your point, hence I said it ;D Just adding to what you said in a humourous fashion. Or so I hoped.

 

[Thespian]

I think most writers would find it hard to genuinely sexualise a character who's sex they aren't attracted to. Unless it was in parody or something.

Yea, I never said pure sexualisation is enough. In-fact I said a while back that it's pretty cheap. But sexualising a character doesn't automatically cheapen them. That's all I was ever getting at.

Fair enough. Just misunderstood your point.

Yeah, true enough. I agree with everything you said except for;
I think most writers would find it hard to genuinely sexualise a character who's sex they aren't attracted to. Unless it was in parody or something.

I really don't think that's true. A lot of Writers and artists alike that I like can easily portray a highly attractive member of either gender.

 

[Ian Caronia]

Nearly naked lades have always sold to hot blooded young men. It's 'human nature' as they say. You sir may be the rare exception to the rule..and for that Bravo!

Personally I'd like to see a few more scantly clad men...just to make things even. >_>

Wish Granted...

His name is Thor. Close the bedroom door. He's going to have you all to himself, right here on the floor...

What people don't seem to understand is that comic do have scantly clad men and ridiculously smoking hot dudes to match the smoking hot babes. I don't blame them, though, since the topic of how a female character looks and dresses is a much more voiced one. Just gotta find the comic that gives you the smexy version of your hero of choice.

OT:There is nothing sexist about showing a woman walking around her home in her undies. There's nothing sexist about a woman fighting in scantly clad clothing (because sexuality is a powerful tool for distraction indeed). There is only something sexist when the artist and the writer decide it's time for the panel to zoom in on her ass for no reason.

-Also: WHY ARE YOU DOING THAT TO HARLEY?! LEAVE HARLEY ALOONE~!!
Seriously, just fucking stop making Harley a slut, DC! Stop it! Harley has a one-piece suit and little harlequin ear things that droop when she's sad and perk up when she's happy. She's cute the way she was originally intended. What they keep doing to her, especially in the latest Batman games, is just...Argh! Fucking quit it! That's like making Batman wear just the blue tights, the cowl and the cape with nothing else on!
*listens to the excited moans of rabid Batman fans at the mention of it*
...On second thought, nevermind. >_>