The "Male Power Fantasy": what do women generally and actually find sexy?

[Lilani]

Be definition then. This is not actually tackling the problem.

I'm not sure what you think the "problem" is, but it seems to me the problem is the costumes and poses women often get in comics is costumes which are revealing in random places for no other reason than to show off the body, and the poses are designed to show off these random body parts as much as possible. Yes Superman is in all spandex, but at least he's all covered. Every itaration of Superman's costume has been like that: Yes it's skin tight, yes it shows his muscles, but he doesn't have a bare six-pack or a bulging package being thrust forward. It's less like Fabio and more like Michelangelo's David--the intent is to idealize the figure, not to sexualize it.

Supergirl, on the other hand, can never seem to get a full costume.

Half the time she can't get something to cover her middrift, and even if she does get that then she has to wear a miniskirt that inevitably flies up all the time when she's fighting, and when she doesn't have that then she's just bearing everything in what amounts to a one-piece swimsuit. The only parts she can get covered with any regularity are the parts they aren't allowed to have uncovered in the comic. You want a male equivalent to that, rather than just sticking Superman in Supergirl's costume? Okay, here you go.

Spoiler

There. Only the parts covered that need to be covered, and posed with sexiness first in mind. The poses in that Supergirl picture aren't actually too bad, I really like the one on the far left that's sitting hunched over. But the one up front is being introduced ass first, and all the costumes that show major cleavage have been ensured full front shots.

 

[Talshere]

Snip

Fair. I just think using anything from that period is fundamentally flawed. I remember watching the video the woman who got all the flak made on ditsy female characters. I had the same objection there. If you iliminated all her pre 2000 example. Then eliminated all the games that were universally hated like the crappy Samus one. Her list of "valid point" started getting awfully short. Im sure there are lots of good examples, she just picked over the top ones that sorta failed to make her point for those reasons Ive mentioned.

 

[Talshere]

Be definition then. This is not actually tackling the problem.

I'm not sure what you think the "problem" is, but it seems to me the problem is the costumes and poses women often get in comics is costumes which are revealing in random places for no other reason than to show off the body, and the poses are designed to show off these random body parts as much as possible. Yes Superman is in all spandex, but at least he's all covered. Every itaration of Superman's costume has been like that: Yes it's skin tight, yes it shows his muscles, but he doesn't have a bare six-pack or a bulging package being thrust forward. It's less like Fabio and more like Michelangelo's David--the intent is to idealize the figure, not to sexualize it.

Supergirl, on the other hand, can never seem to get a full costume.

Half the time she can't get something to cover her middrift, and even if she does get that then she has to wear a miniskirt that inevitably flies up all the time when she's fighting, and when she doesn't have that then she's just bearing everything in what amounts to a one-piece swimsuit. The only parts she can get covered with any regularity are the parts they aren't allowed to have uncovered in the comic. You want a male equivalent to that, rather than just sticking Superman in Supergirl's costume? Okay, here you go.

Spoiler

There. Only the parts covered that need to be covered, and posed with sexiness first in mind. The poses in that Supergirl picture aren't actually too bad, I really like the one on the far left that's sitting hunched over. But the one up front is being introduced ass first, and all the costumes that show major cleavage have been ensured full front shots.

Ah but you see what youve done is make my point. The one Ive been trying to make.

That superman youve posted is indeed ridiculous. But it *looks* fine. Ignoring the cape, that is both how a man looks and something he would wear. The Hawkeye project of that supergirl picture is literally a ripped man wearing a skin tight tank top and miniskirt. That does NOT make the point. It is literally equivalent but it does not display equivalence. A woman *might* wear a miniskirt and a tank top, she just wouldnt wear one to battle. A man would *never* wear a miniskirt and a tank top, battle gear or otherwise.

This is why the hawkeye project fails. This is why its not a good example. Why its almost never a good example. Its far too literal to properly convey the issue.

I fully agree with you. This:

Spoiler: Perhaps the most blatantly gratuitous moment in modern cinema history

Perhaps the most blatantly gratuitous moment in modern cinema history

That right there is the problem.

 

[Eamar]

Im not arguing but I generally have an issue with the halkeye project for two reasons.

Firstly, clothing. A lot of the men look daft simply because men dont wear cloths like that. While Im not arguing that a bikini is a valid choice for amour, women do actually wear clothes in the style they have in comics.

Shorts and tank top aside, women don't dress like that unless they're at the beach. I'd argue that the fact you don't think there's anything wrong with superheroines being half-naked all the time is proof of comics' image problem.

Secondly is the shape. Often, the other half of the stupidity in the image is because its a shape men dont or cant make with the bodies. We dont bend like that.

Spoiler: Here is working proof women can stand and look like this, next to a hawkeye project image of a man that has been distorted to a none man shape but otherwise looks fine

Here is working proof women can stand and look like this, next to a hawkeye project image of a man that has been distorted to a none man shape but otherwise looks fine.

Those poses are not the same. Ironically, the second one is actually more easily attainable, and I have a hard time believing a man couldn't recreate it.

And there's no telling how much the first picture has been enhanced by photoshop: http://www.upworthy.com/see-why-we-have-an-absolutely-ridiculous-standard-of-beauty-in-just-37-seconds

Overall though: no, men don't bend like that, and women don't bend like that either. That's the whole point.

Yes, comics and games often distort the proportions of those involved but some women do have hour glass shapes.

I know, I have one (though obviously not quite as exaggerated as a superhero's) I still can't bend like that.

 

[Talshere]

Im not arguing but I generally have an issue with the halkeye project for two reasons.

Firstly, clothing. A lot of the men look daft simply because men dont wear cloths like that. While Im not arguing that a bikini is a valid choice for amour, women do actually wear clothes in the style they have in comics.

Shorts and tank top aside, women don't dress like that unless they're at the beach. I'd argue that the fact you don't think there's anything wrong with superheroines being half-naked all the time is proof of comics' image problem.

Secondly is the shape. Often, the other half of the stupidity in the image is because its a shape men dont or cant make with the bodies. We dont bend like that.

Spoiler: Here is working proof women can stand and look like this, next to a hawkeye project image of a man that has been distorted to a none man shape but otherwise looks fine

Here is working proof women can stand and look like this, next to a hawkeye project image of a man that has been distorted to a none man shape but otherwise looks fine.

Those poses are not the same. Ironically, the second one is actually more easily attainable, and I have a hard time believing a man couldn't recreate it.

And there's no telling how much the first picture has been enhanced by photoshop: http://www.upworthy.com/see-why-we-have-an-absolutely-ridiculous-standard-of-beauty-in-just-37-seconds

Overall though: no, men don't bend like that, and women don't bend like that either. That's the whole point.

Yes, comics and games often distort the proportions of those involved but some women do have hour glass shapes.

I know, I have one (though obviously not quite as exaggerated as a superhero's) I still can't bend like that.

Ive actually had this out with another person on this in this thread while youve been away. This was the last set of post which I think illustrated my point.

Be definition then. This is not actually tackling the problem.

I'm not sure what you think the "problem" is, but it seems to me the problem is the costumes and poses women often get in comics is costumes which are revealing in random places for no other reason than to show off the body, and the poses are designed to show off these random body parts as much as possible. Yes Superman is in all spandex, but at least he's all covered. Every itaration of Superman's costume has been like that: Yes it's skin tight, yes it shows his muscles, but he doesn't have a bare six-pack or a bulging package being thrust forward. It's less like Fabio and more like Michelangelo's David--the intent is to idealize the figure, not to sexualize it.

Supergirl, on the other hand, can never seem to get a full costume.

Half the time she can't get something to cover her middrift, and even if she does get that then she has to wear a miniskirt that inevitably flies up all the time when she's fighting, and when she doesn't have that then she's just bearing everything in what amounts to a one-piece swimsuit. The only parts she can get covered with any regularity are the parts they aren't allowed to have uncovered in the comic. You want a male equivalent to that, rather than just sticking Superman in Supergirl's costume? Okay, here you go.

Spoiler

There. Only the parts covered that need to be covered, and posed with sexiness first in mind. The poses in that Supergirl picture aren't actually too bad, I really like the one on the far left that's sitting hunched over. But the one up front is being introduced ass first, and all the costumes that show major cleavage have been ensured full front shots.

Ah but you see what youve done is make my point. The one Ive been trying to make.

That superman youve posted is indeed ridiculous. But it *looks* fine. Ignoring the cape, that is both how a man looks and something he would wear. The Hawkeye project of that supergirl picture is literally a ripped man wearing a skin tight tank top and miniskirt. That does NOT make the point. It is literally equivalent but it does not display equivalence. A woman *might* wear a miniskirt and a tank top, she just wouldnt wear one to battle. A man would *never* wear a miniskirt and a tank top, battle gear or otherwise.

This is why the hawkeye project fails. This is why its not a good example. Why its almost never a good example. Its far too literal to properly convey the issue.

I fully agree with you. This:

Spoiler: Perhaps the most blatantly gratuitous moment in modern cinema history

Perhaps the most blatantly gratuitous moment in modern cinema history

That right there is the problem.

I personally have little problem with Supergirls costume...Mostly. As an effective demi god wearing a suit of armour will not necessarily be high on her list of things to do. It inconvenient etc etc and what she wear would not be out of place as such providing the weather was good. Imo, the issue arises when it becomes gratuitous. Supergirl's costume is one of the more conservative and comics dont do anything like the terrible fan-service manga gets into, which, tbh, makes some of them unwatchable. I remember trying to watch Vampire+Rosario, the devil girl is supposed to be 12 for gods sake :S

 

[Vault101]

If its a modern combat FPS, women present on the front line is factually incorrect. Most nations still ban women on the front line.

If its historical. Women in positions of power by anything but proxy is again a-historical.

Since these two things constitute a large proportion of games atm, it generates a significant proportion if not majority of games where women are potentially actively immersion breaking.

1. I don;t think games like COD have any business as being touted as "realistic"...female solders really isn't a stretch...actually can't you finally play as a female in Ghosts? how many people were complaining about how much of an immersion breaker it was? or complaining about it full stop? I'd hazard a guess to say not as many as were complaining on the the quality of the game. Women may not be on the front line in a number of countries but it is not impossible for them to fight

2. the historical one.....I don't think being a historical setting is an excuse for lack of good female characters..however I [b/]don't[/b] feel there always needs to be the token [b/]"girl who breaks societal norms by being sassy, doing shit and being feminist"[/b] in every work so I can let that slide. BUT when you have a series like assassin's creed and you can recruit female assassins that wear the hood and everything DON'T TELL ME you can't have one "because of history" in fact regardless of that its doable...does anyone expect some lady to come along and stab them to death? I think not, IN FACT Assassin's creed is a prime target for a female protagonist (yes I know liberation exists but I shouldn't have to need an example of x to say x is possible)

[quote/]I personally have little problem with Supergirls costume.[/quote]

well of coarse you wouldn't....you've been arguing the opposite

 

[Talshere]

If its a modern combat FPS, women present on the front line is factually incorrect. Most nations still ban women on the front line.

If its historical. Women in positions of power by anything but proxy is again a-historical.

Since these two things constitute a large proportion of games atm, it generates a significant proportion if not majority of games where women are potentially actively immersion breaking.

1. I don;t think games like COD have any business as being touted as "realistic"...female solders really isn't a stretch...actually can't you finally play as a female in Ghosts? how many people were complaining about how much of an immersion breaker it was? or complaining about it full stop? I'd hazard a guess to say not as many as were complaining on the the quality of the game. Women may not be on the front line in a number of countries but it is not impossible for them to fight

No you are right of course but part of it is design and just overlooking. Certainly when youre in camps and army bases not having female soldiers now is very a-historical. In something like Spec Ops:The Line its a little less believable. Israel does have front line women among other first world nations who are starting to phase it in but I suspect some of it is corner cutting. Not having to develop a yet another set of models for example. Not saying this is an acceptable excuse. I couldnt say about ghost. I refuse to buy Modern Warfare two and up because of the lack of mod-ability and Iward.net.

2. the historical one.....I don't think being a historical setting is an excuse for lack of good female characters..however I [b/]don't[/b] feel there always needs to be the token [b/]"girl who breaks societal norms by being sassy, doing shit and being feminist"[/b] in every work so I can let that slide. BUT when you have a series like assassin's creed and you can recruit female assassins that wear the hood and everything DON'T TELL ME you can't have one "because of history" in fact regardless of that its doable...does anyone expect some lady to come along and stab them to death? I think not, IN FACT Assassin's creed is a prime target for a female protagonist (yes I know liberation exists but I shouldn't have to need an example of x to say x is possible)

No, again I agree completely. Just because women did not hold overt positions of power does not mean they cannot be deep or even covertly powerful if done correctly. Personally, I would rather have no female characters than the standard crappy sassy token female. If a character exists in any world they should have a fundamental reason to exist. If you cannot find one they shouldnt be there. I still really like (some) the Prince of Persia games for this. I recently went back and played them all in sequence and apart from a few outliers the Princess is a fairly compelling independent being. As you say Assassin's Creed III: Liberation, for PS:V, with later PC and console ports actually does have a female protagonist. I havnt played it but Ive been led to believe its fairly good. Certainly once you have taken liberties with historical fact to the extent of assassins creed, compelling reasons to not have a female lead dwindle somewhat.

I personally have little problem with Supergirls costume.

well of coarse you wouldn't....you've been arguing the opposite

Youve sort of taken my point, removed its context, then attacked it. Ive noticed a propensity in these sorts of debates for any criticism to automatically assume you are against for some reason. There can be varying degrees and opinions of agreeing. I havnt been arguing the opposite. My entire presence in this thread has been specifically arguing against the validity of the Hawkeye project as a viable medium to display the gratuitous nature of costume design and character pose. My criticism has also been directly aim at the manner it has gone about trying to send its message rather than the message itself.

Back to the specific comment about about supergirls costume. Apart from being a little tight on the top half. Ignoring the fact she fights in this and whether or not a demi god needs armour, this is not an unreasonable thing for a woman to wear on a hot sunny day at the beach. Cheerleader literally wear all the outfits displayed in that supergirl image. By that sense, there is nothing disastrously *wrong* with it except its context and its comparison to the male counterparts (whos skin tight latex these days isnt exactly a lot better any more).

Compare then to say... Idk... Emma Frost

Spoiler

The only place this would be acceptable is a bedroom or a strip club. I honestly couldnt believe they kept this aesthetic for the X-men films.

 

[Talshere]

Israel does have front line women

No, they don't. Or precisely: they have female combat troops reservists, who just happen to never ever fight.

Since 1948, only 1 Israeli female soldier was killed in combat operations (out of thousands killed soldiers), and she was an engineer aboard a transport helicopter shot down by Hezbollah.

Fairly sure since the the 2000 Equality amendment to the Military Service law, women have had the right to serve in all role open to men, including front line and special forces.

Yeah cos meathead posing with rifles in their boxers is completely different...

 

[Vault101]

And what's 'wrong' with it?

HELLO I AM HERE MAINLY FOR YOUR VEIWING PLEASURE

thats generally whats considered "wrong" with it

 

[Talshere]

Snip

Why yes, yes he is.

Spoiler

I decided to remove this image from my post. Dont wana break the rules by accident

Armed forces members of all branches are among the most crazy youll find. If you can think of something crazy, they have probably done it.

 

[Hagi]

Yes, many women find well-built men sexy (though a lot of women like men on the skinnier side as well). Notice the "well-built" there. Not overly muscular and scarred. Face is also INCREDIBLY important as well (as that above web-comic illustrates). I mean, there is a difference between Marcus Fenix/Kratos and Dante. Most women I know don't want Rob Liefeld characters.

Which is of course why all those romance novel covers show the faces of said men...

As for the topic at hand,

Always been of the opinion that everyone's entitled to their fantasies and even having said fantasies feature in general media. I don't think the problem is ever that there's a lot of X but rather that there's not enough of alternative Y, unless we're talking about obviously illegal stuff.

Male power fantasies are cool, got plenty of those around.
Male sexual fantasies are cool, got plenty of those as well.
Female power fantasies are cool, Those are rarer and we could use more.
Female sexual fantasies are cool, do have quite a few of those but they're constrained to very specific genres from what I can tell.

 

[Uhura]

Which is of course why all those romance novel covers show the faces of said men...

It's easier for the readers to imagine a face they find attractive, when the cover crops out the face of the model.

 

[Hagi]

Which is of course why all those romance novel covers show the faces of said men...

It's easier for the readers to imagine a face they find attractive, when the cover crops out the face of the model.

By that logic shouldn't they be cropping out their muscled torsos as well?

I mean it's easier for the readers to imagine a torso they find attractive, when the cover crops out the torso of the model.

Why have a model at all if it's easier to imagine?