Women have differing tastes. Men on the other hand all like the same.
Just like many women don't like extreme muscley figures many men don't like extreme hourglass figures.
Not all women are the same. Not all men are the same either. Claiming otherwise is sexist in both cases.
I feel like your strawman missed the point. No one claimed all men or women are the same, and literally no one said "Women have differing tastes. Men on the other hand all like the same." (or even tried to make that point)...
Did I misunderstand the post?
The point seemed to be that sexualization of men and women is different because not all women like the typical sexualized ~~male~~ man (as per the example given). That being different implies that men do all like the typical sexualized woman. Which is wrong.
(edit: just realized I did a reverse menandfemales)
I believe you did misunderstand the post.
The post is commenting that both men and women characters in comics are drawn for men. The male characters are aimed at the broad average male power fantasy, not a broad average sexualization that would appeal to women (the way the female characters are drawn for the broad average appeal of men).
When the woman in this comic strip draws Batman in a way that is sexually attractive to her (which is a similar broad strokes "catch as many women as possible" approach comics already use for men), the man in the comic became uncomfortable seeing it. The point is that if they drew male characters in comics with the same approach that they draw female characters, then generally men would feel as uncomfortable by it as women generally feel now.
the man in the comic became uncomfortable seeing it
I don't understand this point. The reason they're uncomfortable with it is because they're drawn in a sexualized manner? But even if all else is true, men in comics are already drawn in a way that many men think is attractive.
At least that's how I understand the point of the "power fantasy". Or do they mean literal physical strength with the "power fantasy"? Because the sexualization of men is definitely not limited to muscles.
Assuming the power fantasy is not just about physical strength, but also (or only) about extreme attractiveness (as perceived by men):
That is an idea that could be true. Are there statistics about how close the typical male hypersexualization is to women's interests compared to how close the typical female hypersexualization is to men's interests?
(as perceived by men)
I think this is the point. It's that both men and women are drawn in a way that attempts to appeal to men and less so what appeals to women (this is what men think ideal-woman looks like. This is what men think ideal-man looks like). This causes side-effects, galore.
Honestly dude you lost me when you started forcing a "ph" in the word fantasy over and over. Can't take this conversation seriously anymore. I've explained it for you, but alas I cannot understand it for you.
I'm not a native english speaker. I'm sorry if my spelling makes my comments difficult to read.
I think I mostly understood the point by now.
(I still don't get why the man would be uncomfortable with the alternative hypersexualization, since he already perceives the initial depiction as hypersexualized, but that doesn't seem to be central to the point anyways.)
Ah, no worries, I thought it was some sort of weird mind games being played so I stopped trusting the sincerity of your posts - my apologies.
The tricky part you seem to be hung up on is that the guy thinks that the male characters are hypersexualized for women, but in reality they are more drawn to be the power fantasy of men - the ideal / fantasy version of themselves essentially. So when the woman draws an "actually hypersexualized" male character, it makes the man uncomfortable. Thus he feels, briefly, what the woman feels reading most comics most of the time.
You did understand their point, they just didn't argue it well.
what are you quoting? are there more images in this post and my client's just showing me the first one?
It's not a real quote. It's the meaning I understood this post to imply.
(My interpretation was already challenged by @Crozekiel below.)
Imo an important point to add is that sexualized characters aren't inherently bad. It's only bad when all or nearly all characters are sexualized. I like media with hot dudes, chicks, and everyhting else, but if all characters from 1 group are sexualized, then it gets weird
There was an Oglaf comic where the aliens noticed that the lobsteroid males looked like lobsters, while the lobsteroid women looked like hot human females in a sexy lobster suit. Same for the bee people, the bear people, the tree people. All the females looked like sexy humans.
They concluded that they had to team up and kill all the humans.
Exactly. Every character depiction is intentional. Sexualizing a character is not inherently bad, but it's clear what the point is when it's done.
If you are only sexualizing one type of character, then you are showing bias towards viewers. When this becomes the norm for most art in a society, it says that type of character (and the people it represents) is primarily there for sexual gratification. And when you do that to women, you create a culture where women are objectified as sex objects and little else is given value. It's inherently reducing a major population into nothing more than the desires of the dominant. I.e. oppression, and specifically in this case: the patriarchy.
It’s only bad when all or nearly all characters are sexualized.
I wouldn't even go that far. If you look into porn or porn games you'll see nearly every character sexualized in different ways depending on the intended audience. Romance novels are an example as well. And when the point of the media is titillation and sexual gratification; that's both good and expected.
Agree on your last sentence. I think one of the big problems is that women as a whole are disproportionately over sexualized and when they are sexualized, it tends to be a lot more blatant.
There absolutely are plenty of works of media where male and female characters are both sexualized. But there's also many where only the female characters are notably sexualized (or are so damn heavily sexualized that the sexualization of the male characters pales in comparison).
A comic strip using false equivalence to allege false equivalence... 🤔
The irony is palpable.
Also: Compare Chris Hemsworth (who usually stars in movies made primarily for men) with Robert Pattinson (Twilight, among other movies that he's less ashamed of).
But, let's not pretend that the Schwarzeneggers and Hemsworths (and male-targeted comic books) don't fuck up male body image. Sure it's a power fantasy, but for most men it's not attainable (in part because a lot of (if not most) of these action movie stars take PEDs ... I mean I guess normal people can take PEDs, too, but they shouldn't, it's quite unhealthy). Especially if we consider how much modern western society promotes behaviors that make people obese.
Patriarchy and objectification harm everyone? Like, can you think of someone who says otherwise? The problem is that when someone says "This comic is not for me because it objectifies someone like me" is usually the only circumstance that others respond "it objectifies someone like me too!" Like yeah, you maybe should have thought of complaining about that, rather than using that rebuttal as an attempt to stop the conversation.
To go along with this comic we have to imagine that women are not attracted to fit men. And while it is true that some women like femboys or dadbods, that is not the majority. A significant number of straight women are attracted to guys with gym bods. If that's correct, then this wouldn't be a false equivalence since both genders are being sexualized unrealistically.
Instead of calling it a false equivalence, I think the point could be made more diplomatically by stating that two wrongs don't make a right.
This is how Tumblr sexymen are born.
I'd read a comic with bishie Batman.
Is this your OC? If not, do you know the author? I like the style. TL;DR tell me where I find more of this please.
It's not the source of this comic, but the same artist that made it now makes a cute and fun to read college AU with the same characters that updates daily. It's been going for a decade now, so you'll have a lot of catching up to do, but if webcomics are your jam then I highly recommend. www.dumbingofage.com
That's just Robert Pattinson Batman...
I really should catch up with Shortpacked, haven't read it in a decade
I think it's been finished for like a decade ...
would.
And that's why these type of comics will never be as famous
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
