You've clearly never seen a bunch of teen/early twenty girls squee over Wolverine's shirtless glory or swoon over (animated) Gambit's suave moves.Toriver said:
And let's not get started on Marvel/DC yaoi fanfiction or fanart. =p
The Sexualization of Women in Comic Books
- Thread starter trooper6
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And let's not get started on Marvel/DC yaoi fanfiction or fanart. =p
I'm not that concerned about how female characters look or dress, as long as they still come off as legitimately badass. You get trouble when there's fail in that last category. And that's all I'm going to say on the subject.
I would say that men are idealizing themselves in mainstream comics, but not sexualizing themselves (on the whole, there are always one or two exceptions).AdamRBi said:I agree to a point and that point is this; by idealizing ourselves in comics aren't we, as men, over sexualizing ourselves? Besides passion and sensitivity what are women naturally tuned to be attracted to? Strength and Confidence, two things male comic book heros are usually exaggerated to portray as a means to be attractive to both something women would love and men would pine to become.Toriver said:While I disagree with the OP's suggestion that sexualization = powerlessness, let's not kid ourselves, guys. We can say all we want that there are plenty of women in comics who are not usually sexualized (Wonder Woman, Invisible Woman and Storm come to mind), but pretty much every female superhero out there has been played for sex appeal at some time or another. And enough with that B.S. about men in comics having muscles of steel as sexualization for the ladies. You and I know that's just a cheap cop-out argument with little basis in reality. Women don't go see Superman movies to fantasize about him carrying them away to the Fortress of Solitude. Nor do they watch Die Hard to drool over John McClane. As others have mentioned, characters like Edward Cullen or even freaking Harry Potter have exponentially more drooling, obsessed fangirls than any superhero. Comic books (or at least superhero comics) have for a very long time been almost exclusively been a man's medium, made by men for men, so it stands to reason that the images within superhero comics, both male and female, would be made to appeal to men. The well-muscled men of comics are not a woman's ideal of a man, but a man's view of the ideal man: the man we men want to be, not necessarily the man women want. This applies to countless action heroes in movies and games as well: Conan the Barbarian, Rocky, Rambo, the Terminator, anything Steven Seagal, Vin Diesel or van Damme have ever done, Markus Fenix, Duke Nukem (to parodic effect), Nathan Drake, Kratos, the list goes on. That's the effect they're all going for: our own gender's fantasy about our own body image. It's the image we men have built for ourselves as the ideal. And because sight is naturally much more of a primary sense for men when it comes to sex (compared to smell and touch for women), our view of a good-looking woman is a much bigger part of women's body image than the reverse. As a straight man, I will admit that men tend to be a lot more picky about what we consider an attractive-looking woman than women are for us, and that has a big part to play in what the female ideal is in the eyes of both men and women. So I just don't see how that "sexualized man" argument holds any weight in the terms of the men in action films and comic books. Sure, men are sexualized, but you can't really claim that it's in those media that they are. Superman and Batman are not, nor have they ever been, considered really "sexy" characters. The one real example of overt male sexualization I can offer in action/comic media is James Bond. Heck, I'm straight as an arrow and I'D let Bond have his way with me. But other than that, you have to look at media designed primarily for women to really see male sexualization: rom-coms, soap operas and the like. That's where the sexually appealing guys to women are. And the same logic applies: along with the handsome guys are the women that women want to be like. It's just the different ideals and interests that thousands of years of assigned gender roles have implanted in us. Whether it's nature or nurture, I really don't care.
TLR: Women are sexualized in comics, men are sexualized in rom-coms (and NOT in comics). Men in comics are the male fantasy of ourselves. This is a surprise to no-one.
I still say, while not intentional, both genders are equally sexualized, otherwise they'd be too real and thus some of the appeal would be lost.
I think many of the fellows here haven't actually seen what it looks like when men are sexualized. Let's go back to one of the images a poster brought up earlier as part of his example that men are sexualized in comics too.
Superman is an idealized form, but he's not sexualized. He, like most depictions of male superheroes in costume, has no crotch...also no nipples, and no butt shots. The things that make women sexual (mostly big boobs and butt at this point in our history and culture--though not always so) are not highlighted.
Unlike say this:
This guy has a penis, and while he is powerful and idealized, he is also really sexualized.
One of the larger points the original blog wants to make is that having only the male gaze in comics is one of the things that makes comics so dominated by male readership. That changing it up a bit could alienate fewer female readers and result in more women reading comic books. The writer isn't saying that women should never be sexualized, but that there should be care taken to equal it out. Mainstream superhero comics haven't gotten very far on this.
On the other hand, Superhero blockbuster movies, which can't afford to basically ignore the female film audience, work differently. Are there sexualized women? Sure. But they also sexualize the men in ways that they aren't generally in comics. I think a great example is Thor.
Here is Thor from the comics, idealized for straight men, not sexualized for straight women or gay men.
And here is Thor from the film--idealized body...but sexualized for those who like looking at men.
Anyhow, this blog post is a good overview of women in comics...and how for quite some time DC had a policy were discouraged from being main characters or important:
http://www.comicbookgrrrl.com/2011/04/06/women-in-comics-an-overview/
And here is Gail Simone, one of the few female mainstream comic writers on mainstream hero comics's tendency to depower, rape, and kill its female heroes:
http://www.unheardtaunts.com/wir/
So the women can be badass....but not too badass.
She made a good point then she took to Alpha Centuri. That is how far off point she was. It was actually ridiculous to read. Men and women are sexualised differently but she does them the same to show her point.
And? As far as I was aware this is what people mean when they say women are oversexualised. They don't mean the impossible figures they mean the way the costumes are cut. People don't whine about the Batgirls being oversexualised, or Wonder Woman, or even Power Girl. They might complain about how the proportions on Power Girl are ridiculous, but they don't complain about how her costume is too sexy.
People complain about Supergirl, who prances around in a mini-skirt, or Poison Ivy, who is sometimes implied to be wearing nothing but her flowers.
And the pictures the artist has added of taking men and putting them into the same costume doesn't work because clothes for men and woman are different. You wouldn't see a man in a one piece swimsuit or a bikini in real life, but you would see a woman. Debating the combat applications of a bikini is valid, but it wouldn't be the same unless the male superheroes were wearing speedos.
That's the difference, the men get fully concealing costumes, that may be skin tight but do at least cover their entire or most of their body, women get to wear thongs and one pieces. Which is why I prefer characters like Wonder Woman, Power-Girl and the various Bat-Women and Girls. Because as long as they have competent writers they are very rarely sexualised. Heck, even Catwoman of the comics (not the game) doesn't unzip her jumpsuit to do her acrobatics in.
And for the brave:
http://www.comicvine.com/love-sausage/29-60457/all-images/108-214958/mot7/105-731937/
It is the greatest creation of Western Literature. And besides, they actually have plot points about it being cheesecakey, mock the over sexualisation of women in general, and feature just as many shots of Thugboy shirtless and naked as they do Empowered (I went through all six volumes and counted, he is shirtless in as many panels as Empowered, and you can actually see his nipples.) Also, all of the men are depicted as having crotches, and often the positioning of the characters is specifically making this apparent. Which is weird, because it means that a comic literally created because of sexual fetishism is actually one of the most deconstructive comics about sexual fetishism and the superhero that there is.
People complain about Supergirl, who prances around in a mini-skirt, or Poison Ivy, who is sometimes implied to be wearing nothing but her flowers.
And the pictures the artist has added of taking men and putting them into the same costume doesn't work because clothes for men and woman are different. You wouldn't see a man in a one piece swimsuit or a bikini in real life, but you would see a woman. Debating the combat applications of a bikini is valid, but it wouldn't be the same unless the male superheroes were wearing speedos.
That's the difference, the men get fully concealing costumes, that may be skin tight but do at least cover their entire or most of their body, women get to wear thongs and one pieces. Which is why I prefer characters like Wonder Woman, Power-Girl and the various Bat-Women and Girls. Because as long as they have competent writers they are very rarely sexualised. Heck, even Catwoman of the comics (not the game) doesn't unzip her jumpsuit to do her acrobatics in.
And for the brave:
http://www.comicvine.com/love-sausage/29-60457/all-images/108-214958/mot7/105-731937/
Don't you dare mock Empowered!Tallim said:
Comic books have always been about exaggerating characteristics. It's just up to the artist how they go about that. Of course there is the old adage: sex sells.
It is the greatest creation of Western Literature. And besides, they actually have plot points about it being cheesecakey, mock the over sexualisation of women in general, and feature just as many shots of Thugboy shirtless and naked as they do Empowered (I went through all six volumes and counted, he is shirtless in as many panels as Empowered, and you can actually see his nipples.) Also, all of the men are depicted as having crotches, and often the positioning of the characters is specifically making this apparent. Which is weird, because it means that a comic literally created because of sexual fetishism is actually one of the most deconstructive comics about sexual fetishism and the superhero that there is.
It's not that women are being "sexualized" in comicbooks - they're being sexualized in our culture. The current model of the family that our society has been experimenting with for the last 50ish years, feminism, was supposed put to death the objectification of women, and the oppression to children that came with it.trooper6 said:Hello All,
I stumbled upon this very interesting take on the difference between the way men are portrayed in comic books vs. the way women are portrayed in comic books. This is a very good counterpoint to the usual argument: "But men are drawn unrealistically too--we don't all have all those muscles!"
Bonus: exciting photos.
Check it out and then I'd be interested to read y'all's commentary.
http://rosalarian.tumblr.com/post/6288675810/megan-rosalarian-gedris-dressed-to-kill
How's that working for us?
Well, you are right that this is part of a larger cultural problem. But as to your question, how's the last 50 years of feminism working for us? Quite well, I'd say. Are we far enough? No. But at least it is no longer legal to rape your wife. At least women can have their own credit ratings. At least women can get pregnant and keep their jobs. At least women are now part of the actual military rather than WACs/WAVEs/WAM's/SPARs and can attend the service academies. At least women don't have chaperones and creepy sign in requirements in colleges dorms. At least we now have sexual harassment laws...and any of the many other ways in which life has gotten better since 1950.zigity12 said:
We aren't as far as we need to be. But as a person of color, as a queer person, as a person who has benefitted from feminism a lot...I'd much rather live now than in 1950.
As for the comics, you point out problems in hopes to make a positive change in the world. And there are other comics out there that don't treat women like that. Some of them do quite well. Let's hope we can get more of them...or at least try to get some of the mainstream artists not to use playboy and hustler as reference photos.
Usually when someone is being sexualized, it means their costume is too revealing, or accentuates their genitals and/or breasts. Entirely nude is definitely more revealing than most heroine's costumes.Kahunaburger said:
Despair was meant to be repulsive, that's evident in her design. Dr. Manhattan isn't, he has the kind of body (minus the blue glow) that most men would kill for.Kahunaburger said:
Naked =/= sexualized. Dr. Manhattan is naked and has a nice body, but he isn't framed in such a way as to look seductive or sexy.Buchholz101 said:
To understand the difference you should look at men in anatomy books and then look at Playgirl. (I would post examples, but I imagine posting photos of naked people is against forum policy) Both are naked but one is sexualized and one is not. Similarly, there are many statues of muscular naked men, and those statues are generally *idealized* men but not *sexualized* men.
If you want to see a bunch of non sexualized naked men, go to a European beach. If you want to see a bunch of sexualized naked men look at gay porn. There are really big differences.
Actually, Jason Segel was naked in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but in that scene he wasn't sexualized either.
well... they're are starting to be portrayed differently in the OTHER comics, but the comics that non comic readers pick up (i.e. superhero comics) kinda have to do this so people could stick with them. though i don't like people defining this ONLY to comics, because they do the same sort of thing in movies and especially games. so it might be a problem, but it's a problem for all the mediums, not just comics
You are right that this is a problem in all media, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it in any medium then.TheFederation said:
Also, I've been an avid comic reader for decades...and most of my fellow comic readers only read superhero comics. I was one of the few that was reading the sword and sorcery or horror books. As the 80s went on, most of the non hero books were cancelled. Witching Hour, House of Mystery, Arion Lord of Atlantis, Warlord, etc. There was a great resurgence with Vertigo, and indie books have given great diversity like Love and Rockets...but the average comic reader that I've known has stuck primarily to superhero comics (or anime if that is their thing, but then they don't tend to identify as a comic book fan, but rather an anime/manga fan).
This isn't me being sarcastic, a legitimate question. How old are you?trooper6 said:
And back to the original topic. We both have our opinion, and it doesn't seem very likely that either of us is going to change the mind of the other. Agree to disagree?
I am a woman so maybe I'm biased, but I agree with her. It's a combination of the costume, bodily proportions, and poses.
Yes, most male superheroes are muscled because they have to be fit to be heroes, right? Well does a woman REALLY need triple F-cups to fight crime? That's the difference. Even idealized men are more practical for comics than this.
Yes, these women kick ass and I do have my fair share of favorites, but it'd honestly hard for me to read comics a lot of the time just because there is so much...of this.
I dunno, I guess I'm arguing for more variation. You can keep your blonde bombshells, but can we have less slutty posing maybe? Or ridiculous costumes? Please?
Yes, most male superheroes are muscled because they have to be fit to be heroes, right? Well does a woman REALLY need triple F-cups to fight crime? That's the difference. Even idealized men are more practical for comics than this.
Yes, these women kick ass and I do have my fair share of favorites, but it'd honestly hard for me to read comics a lot of the time just because there is so much...of this.
I dunno, I guess I'm arguing for more variation. You can keep your blonde bombshells, but can we have less slutty posing maybe? Or ridiculous costumes? Please?
Trooper6 said basically what I was going to - Dr. Manhattan, like Despair, has a non-sexualization reason to be walking around naked all the time. He's meant to evoke greco-roman/renaissance sculptures, figure studies, etc. He would look (and pose, and be looked at) much differently if he were as sexualized as your average mainstream female comic book character.Buchholz101 said:
I'm 38, turning 39...and looking at your profile...I see that you are 15. Eep! Ignore everything I said that involved recommending you look at things you are not legally old enough to look.Buchholz101 said:
But that you are not legally able to buy porn makes me think of something. Thinking about the sorts of poses they put women in in these books, like this one:
It just looks to me like a lot of the hero books are porn-lite standins for guys who can't yet legally buy porn.
I'd like mainstream comics to be a bit more welcoming to people besides young straight guys.
I'd also like to have more mainstream non-hero books, like the now departed Ms. Tree or Warlord, but that's another topic.
And I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.
Legaly buy porn...trooper6 said:I'm 38, turning 39...and looking at your profile...I see that you are 15. Eep! Ignore everything I said that involved recommending you look at things you are not legally old enough to look.Buchholz101 said:
But that you are not legally able to buy porn makes me think of something. Thinking about the sorts of poses they put women in in these books, like this one:
It just looks to me like a lot of the hero books are porn-lite standins for guys who can't yet legally buy porn.
I'd like mainstream comics to be a bit more welcoming to people besides young straight guys.
I'd also like to have more mainstream non-hero books, like the now departed Ms. Tree or Warlord, but that's another topic.
And I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
There is this magical tool called the Internet nowdays that can be used to find MOUNTAINS of free porn in SECONDS.
Also WTF is with the annoying captcha that now tries to be advertising?
I think the big issue here is that both sexes are idealised and to a certain extent, sexualised in different ways.
Men on the whole more often go after physical points of attraction (rounded hips, large breasts, cherubic facial features, slender, otherwise in good physical health) whilst the features that men are after tend to be just as shallow but harder to represent in drawing (strong, masculine features, confidence, authority, wealth and resources).
In terms of design it's really easy to make a woman sexually appealing to a man because a lot of our 'pre-programmed' things we're supposed to find attractive are based largely on physical appearance (put a beautiful woman with a nice arse and large breasts in a tight, revealing outfit and she'll look sexy, put a man in a simmilarly designed outfit...it looks silly), the things women find attractive tend to be more based around resourcefullness and the ability to provide (to women, Bruce Wayne is sexier than Batman, the guy's rich, he's in charge, he often posess strong masculine features and could buy you a palce made of solid gold).
It's harder to make men sexy to women in a visual medium because what we find attractive (based on sex) is very different.
Men want sexy super models, women want to swim in cash (ever notice why it isn't too uncommon to see old/ugly rich guys dating attractive young women?).
Men on the whole more often go after physical points of attraction (rounded hips, large breasts, cherubic facial features, slender, otherwise in good physical health) whilst the features that men are after tend to be just as shallow but harder to represent in drawing (strong, masculine features, confidence, authority, wealth and resources).
In terms of design it's really easy to make a woman sexually appealing to a man because a lot of our 'pre-programmed' things we're supposed to find attractive are based largely on physical appearance (put a beautiful woman with a nice arse and large breasts in a tight, revealing outfit and she'll look sexy, put a man in a simmilarly designed outfit...it looks silly), the things women find attractive tend to be more based around resourcefullness and the ability to provide (to women, Bruce Wayne is sexier than Batman, the guy's rich, he's in charge, he often posess strong masculine features and could buy you a palce made of solid gold).
It's harder to make men sexy to women in a visual medium because what we find attractive (based on sex) is very different.
Men want sexy super models, women want to swim in cash (ever notice why it isn't too uncommon to see old/ugly rich guys dating attractive young women?).
I do agree with your point, but not with hers necessarily. What she says comes solely from the mind of a woman who, and I don't want to sound like a prick, clearly has very little notion of how the average male psyche actually works.Mallefunction said:
She's basically saying "It's annoying to us because women are unrealistically sexualized but men aren't and so they are the lucky ones, just look at the difference in poses, etc." And that is wrong. She assumes that women get the short end of the stick b/c they are sexually objectified, but men do not and they must obviously not have as many issues with comics.
Here's the truth she does not say: Men are portrayed as overtly aggressive, hyper masculinized, take-no-bullshit-from-anyone, walking tanks of steroids and testosterone of unreal proportions, and somehow she assumes that that whole schtick is clearly not nearly as bad as being portrayed as a stripper. That churning out cultural mold after cultural mold of pseudo alpha males whose obvious masculinity we have no way of ever matching plus zero character depth is somehow less grating to us.
What we need is more variety, in general. Not only in terms of desexualizing females, which I'm all about, but in terms of character, story, and, hell, basic anatomical proportions. That's one big reason why I'm not an avid comic book reader even though I may show interest from time to time. The simple fact that I always have to be swimming through shit that reads like Alpha Male: the Testosterone Chronicles, or How I learned Biceps, 8-packs, and Snarling equals Love and teamwork is more than enough to put off the whole mainstream thing for a while and focus on fucking reading books.
Small note: If you want to see what female objectification of males looks like, that isjust as character twisting and dehumanizing as the female objectification of comic books, just read any Shojo Manga out there. Females just do it differently. To each their own, i say, but bounds of reason should be kept in mind, that's all.