Why are male X-Men allowed to be fat but female X-Men aren't?

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

So are you talking about the fundamental system itself because if i'm honest i don't think i should have to draw fully dressed women if i don't want same goes for men. I have pictures i have drawn for fun that are clearly explotative by the terms here. Men bent over, women in weird positions. It's an interesting conversation because the intellectual side of me can see what it's meant but the artist in me is like well i'm drawing what I want to draw and what speaks to me at the moment. I want to be inclusive in my art but i don't want to be censored.

In terms of comic books, you totally would have to draw fully-dressed people just, well, because of the rating thing. But then, that leads to a very, very interesting point about DC's Black Label: Did you hear of the naked Bruce 'fiasco'? Under a label that was boasting about breaking all these barriers and pushing the envelope, this image was immediately censored on second printing due to similar outrage from its male readership. There were the exact same arguments made as it would have been had a woman been drawn the same way; calling that it was exploitive (the rest were jokes as far as I can remember.) However, the image itself wasn't that detailed, and certainly not to the extent of how Doctor Manhattan's drawn, it was actually pretty tame all things considered, even quite similar to how I've seen women drawn in comics--as in, the shadowing was nigh on identical, if just a tad more revealing.

Contrast that to images of Catwoman or Black Cat, where their jumpsuits have been pulled down to nearly reveal their chest and nearly reveal their crotch...nobody bats an eye.

And then contrast all of that with how nakedness was presented for Wolverine in Weapon X by Brisson: that was true, artistic nudity--he was sheltered, presented as vulnerable without being exploited; there was no 'sexiness' getting in the way of the horrors shown. Shadows were perfectly placed without sacrificing form. You never get that for, say, Ororo or Scarlet Witch (which is extra glaring considering I recently read an old issue where, when she's underage and naked, an older man is spying on her. How was this drawn? She was just about covering her chest, the top of her groin nearly on show. She was a child being sexualised on panel.

But in terms of artistic freedom outside of commercial businesses? No, of course you get free reign! Draw and explore what you want, but I'd totally recommend varying it up now and then in terms of body shape!

[Triniking1234]

Should a new X-Woman be created who is a little bigger or should a current X-Woman just put on some pounds? If so, which X-Woman?

Karma

10char

[jwatson]

In terms of comic books, you totally would have to draw fully-dressed people just, well, because of the rating thing. But then, that leads to a very, very interesting point about DC's Black Label: Did you hear of the naked Bruce 'fiasco'? Under a label that was boasting about breaking all these barriers and pushing the envelope, this image was immediately censored on second printing due to similar outrage from its male readership. There were the exact same arguments made as it would have been had a woman been drawn the same way; calling that it was exploitive (the rest were jokes as far as I can remember.) However, the image itself wasn't that detailed, and certainly not to the extent of how Doctor Manhattan's drawn, it was actually pretty tame all things considered, even quite similar to how I've seen women drawn in comics--as in, the shadowing was nigh on identical, if just a tad more revealing.

Contrast that to images of Catwoman or Black Cat, where their jumpsuits have been pulled down to nearly reveal their chest and nearly reveal their crotch...nobody bats an eye.

And then contrast all of that with how nakedness was presented for Wolverine in Weapon X by Brisson: that was true, artistic nudity--he was sheltered, presented as vulnerable without being exploited; there was no 'sexiness' getting in the way of the horrors shown. Shadows were perfectly placed without sacrificing form. You never get that for, say, Ororo or Scarlet Witch (which is extra glaring considering I recently read an old issue where, when she's underage and naked, an older man is spying on her. How was this drawn? She was just about covering her chest, the top of her groin nearly on show. She was a child being sexualised on panel.

But in terms of artistic freedom outside of commercial businesses? No, of course you get free reign! Draw and explore what you want, but I'd totally recommend varying it up now and then in terms of body shape!

I do and i get what your saying. I draw full figured men and women in my sketchbooks all the time. So what we are really asking for is balance. That's more than fair.

In the comic medium though specifically i think that starts with the writer.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

Except it makes no sense for Marvel to do so.
At the end of the day, Marvel is interested in making money first and foremost - same deal every other comic company, or any other company for that matter.

Following the safe path generates profit - taking a risk MIGHT generate more profit, but it also might bomb.
Changing a pre-established character in a way that does away the main reason why said character became popular in the first place is a hell of a risk, and I'm not so sure the potential profit is actually large enough to be worth it.

I'm having a hard time imagining that a run of "Fat Red Sonja" will make it past the first story arc.
And I'm doubting a ton of female readers who are otherwise not interested in Red Sonja suddenly decide to start reading it on mass just because she's fat now.
At the very least - not in the numbers that would offset the loss in pre-existing audience that would be turned away by the premise.

But at the same time, the same old tactics run a risk of stagnation, therefore risking the same loss in profit as an immediate bomb might pose.

And, nobody's saying you'd even have to change the character to that extent; how about just making it all that bit less exploitive? Have her sensuality presented differently, not quite so overtly all the same; that's a possibility! Besides, I argue if Felicia's characterisation is truly as strong as we feel it to be then it won't and shouldn't matter what she's wearing; that fanbase will still love her. Unless 100% of her readers are literally just banking on her risque nature? (Which certainly isn't true in my case, so there's at least one point against that.) Comics are just as much plot, after all, are they not?

[jwatson]

Karma

10char

We're going to need a sturdier prosthetic. *hangs head in shame.* i couldn't pass that joke up.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

I do and i get what your saying. I draw full figured men and women in my sketchbooks all the time. So what we are really asking for is balance. That's more than fair.

In the comic medium though specifically i think that starts with the writer.

Yeah, balance, exactly! Like, if it's really such a big deal to make it less exploitive for female characters then, hell, go full equality and do the exact same with the male characters. Nobody's gonna complain if it's 100% fair.

Which is also why we need to challenge the writer's depictions of women; it's getting better though! So many plots have stopped relying on sex for shock value and, ya know, actually give these characters some damn good heroics! It's slow going but it's coming!

[Triniking1234]

Honestly you should draw whatever you want as long as it ain't illegal.

Also it feels like the sex for shock value thing only happened for a decade. It was only a certain generation of writers who pushing that crap; mostly cuz TV series who doing it.

[bladeofdarkness]

But at the same time, the same old tactics run a risk of stagnation, therefore risking the same loss in profit as an immediate bomb might pose.

And, nobody's saying you'd even have to change the character to that extent; how about just making it all that bit less exploitive? Have her sensuality presented differently, not quite so overtly all the same; that's a possibility! Besides, I argue if Felicia's characterisation is truly as strong as we feel it to be then it won't and shouldn't matter what she's wearing; that fanbase will still love her. Unless 100% of her readers are literally just banking on her risque nature? (Which certainly isn't true in my case, so there's at least one point against that.) Comics are just as much plot, after all, are they not?

Don't get me wrong - I fully understand what you're saying.
But the most important thing in any business is to know exactly who your target audience is - and how to market to them.

making female characters unattractive is likely to turn away male readers, while making them attractive is unlikely to turn away female ones.
This is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

Don't get me wrong - I fully understand what you're saying.
But the most important thing in any business is to know exactly who your target audience is - and how to market to them.

making female characters unattractive is likely to turn away male readers, while making them attractive is unlikely to turn away female ones.
This is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

So then, why not broaden the readership a tad? Hold both male and female to the same standards when it comes to depiction? For every one 'sexy' female variant, there has to be another, drawn to the [Iexact[/I] same standards for the males, not that tame 2004 cover, I mean all out. Fair would be fair.

[Andru]

I wish I could say I was above it, but the only reason I started reading the "Grayson" series was because I thought Janin drew a damn fine Dick Grayson.

Side-note: It ended up being a pretty good series!

EDIT: So it's just not straight male readers, it's males in general

[bladeofdarkness]

So then, why not broaden the readership a tad? Hold both male and female to the same standards when it comes to depiction? For every one 'sexy' female variant, there has to be another, drawn to the [Iexact[/I] same standards for the males, not that tame 2004 cover, I mean all out. Fair would be fair.

I suspect its because portraying male character in "sexy" poses is likely to turn away the straight male audience - while not being as likely to actually DRAW new female readers to a franchise and characters they aren't likely interested in to begin with.
Men are a bit dumber then women in that regard I'm afraid (speaking from experience).

fairness is of no consequence - only profit.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

I suspect its because portraying male character in "sexy" poses is likely to turn away the straight male audience - while not being as likely to actually DRAW new female readers to a franchise and characters they aren't likely interested in to begin with.
Men are a bit dumber then women in that regard I'm afraid (speaking from experience).

fairness is of no consequence - only profit.

And the gay male readership? Hell, the gay female readership? Where do they factor into this argument; because, say if you're right and it doesn't draw in straight female readership, what about more gay men? Why are they any less to be interested in it? That's a profit right there.

[bladeofdarkness]

And the gay male readership?

Smaller - not large enough to offset the likely loss from the straight male demographic.
It's a numbers decision pure and simple.

[Havok83]

And the gay male readership? Hell, the gay female readership? Where do they factor into this argument; because, say if you're right and it doesn't draw in straight female readership, what about more gay men? Why are they any less to be interested in it? That's a profit right there.

Most of the creators at the top arent gay males or females, and arent catering to them. The ones that are and have been vocal have had shades of that influence in their work but they are by and large a minority hence why we see more material catered to straight white men

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

Smaller - not large enough to offset the likely loss from the straight male demographic.
It's a numbers decision pure and simple.

Are you sure? Because I've heard that the readership's been growing on that demograph. Besides; what would even be the harm in being a bit more inclusive for them. I mean, it's just variant covers and if you've got the exact same equal standards to draw men and women by then, so what? The sexy, exploited ladies would still be there, but now just joined by equally sexy and equally exploited men. Everyone wins.