DarthSka said:
The biggest flaw to her argument is that she says men aren't sexualized, just shown as muscular. Uh, that's how men are sexualized: portrayed like having the body of Greek gods. That's the stereotypical sexual feature that men have to deal with (Twilight anybody?). It's usually frowned upon to say, but that's just ingrained in us. Those are the basic sexual features looked to for survival and reproduction. Women looked for larger, muscular men to protect and provide for her and their offspring. Men looked for an ideal mate that would provide the ideal offspring and provide proper care for them. It's what we unconsciously look for: both sides. Women are just as guilty of this stereotype as men, especially in media portrayal. Do I care? No, but I am aware of how it works.
Thing is, as has been mentioned above, while men are stereotyped in comics, it's really not in a
sexual way.
Thick muscular limbs, mountainous pecs and abs you could break rocks on have little to do with sex. It's much more a male power fantasy: characters like Superman embody the alpha-male physique and mindset many guys subconsciously wish they had. By and large, women don't find ridiculously pumped men sexy, but
we get jealous of characters like that because we recognise that they could easily beat us in a fight. In essence, characters like this:
represent
the male fantasy of power, not a female fantasy of sex. Need proof? Check out Superman's crotch in that picture I posted. It's non-existent. His legs simply join together, and there's a slightly flat gap between them. If Superman was
sexualized to the same extent as female characters in comics, he'd have a bulge in his pants out past his knees, and his arse cheeks and nipples would be visible through his suit. Whenever a man wears a skin-tight suit, his behind is simply a featureless, slightly rounded block that attaches to his legs. Whenever a woman wears a skin-tight suit, however, her arse cheeks are viewable as if there's no fabric there in the first place. Just check out that picture of Nova above.
In fact, the occasions were famous male super-heroes
have been sexualised to the same degree as their sistren caused so much wailing from fans, artists and designers now take special care
not to evoke it again. My example:
In this film, you had a design for Batman, Robin and Batgirl that
deliberately played up sexual aspects. Batman's suit had nipples, the costume designers put extra emphasis on the crotch reasons, in the movie you see the suit riding up Batman's arse... in short, Batman and Robin subjected its two male leads to exactly the same kind of sexualisation that the comic industry has applied to female characters for decades. And fans screamed and called the Batman franchise "ruined" as a result. It's OK to show Batgirl in a sexualised way, in a tight leather suit that emphasises the characters boobs and behind, and leaves no imagination as to what's inbetween her legs. In that sense, the film was staying true to the comic. But by applying that same mentality to the male characters, the film earned the ire of fanboys everywhere who failed to see the double-standard.
Until Superman has a red G-string on top of his blue suit, not a set of crotchless boxers, until Marvel puts Spiderman thrusting with his junk on the front of his comic, until Batman has a whip and handcuffs to go with his shiny black suit, then its simply unfair to say male characters are just as sexualised as female characters. They are certainly exaggerated in their physical attributes, and they certainly play on fantasies. The trouble is, those are
our fantasies, the fantasy of being the dominant male, not female fantasies about being ravished by a man as large as a Cave Troll. I think you'll find many women prefer their men more toned and sculpted rather than out-and-out ripped.
