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

[jwatson]

Yeah exactly! Case in point; Look how much of a risk has been taken to be 'risuqe' and, again, sports-leotards don't work like that!!!

The problem i have with that though is at what case is it exploitative compared to what art style or what the artist like to see. Like can fictional imagery really be exploitative. Are photographers exploiting models by taking pictures of them or are models exploiting themselves by allow pictures to be taken of them. Is it exploitative if a woman draws a bunch of sexy half dressed women or if a man draws a bunch of half naked men. Is is the act itself what makes it exploitative or how it makes us feel? I think the bishop one was exploitative because it played into the myth about gay men and what is thought of black men by some.

In comics should the onus for that be with the writer for not writing plus size woman or for writing overly sexual scenes or is it on the artist for expressing his own creativity given loose reign. Are we to stunt creativity or should creativity have to come with an automatic censor label in the mind.

[Vegan Daddy]

Oh you want more fat women? Joy Boy is the boy for you.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

to what end? to get straight dudes hot for another Wolverine appearance?

Maybe not straight men, but gay and bi men might have a thing or two to say about it. Fair is fair, after all, isn't it?

first, guys aren't known for teasing. is teasing something that attracts straight women? and boy are you ever off about the arms. anectdotely, 9 out of 10 times a woman is complimenting a guy on his physique, it's the chest or arms. the studies say that it's the length of a guy's legs. but all i hear are compliments on the arms, shoulders, and chest.

Yes. Have you ever heard of a male stripper? Those are very popular, usually due in part, for the teasing part of their act. And just because the feature of a man most likely to be complimented is his arms doesn't equate it to the same amount of exploitation shown on female figures; arms are acceptable to show in society, much like their chests. Men are praised for it, in fact--women's chests, on the other hand? Pretty taboo.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

The problem i have with that though is at what case is it exploitative compared to what art style or what the artist like to see. Like can fictional imagery really be exploitative. Are photographers exploiting models by taking pictures of them or are models exploiting themselves by allow pictures to be taken of them. Is it exploitative if a woman draws a bunch of sexy half dressed women or if a man draws a bunch of half naked men. Is is the act itself what makes it exploitative or how it makes us feel? I think the bishop one was exploitative because it played into the myth about gay men and what is thought of black men by some.

In comics should the onus for that be with the writer for not writing plus size woman or for writing overly sexual scenes or is it on the artist for expressing his own creativity given loose reign. Are we to stunt creativity or should creativity have to come with an automatic censor label in the mind.

Both are exploitive when it comes to drawing; modelling, on the other hand, is very different for both parties. With modelling there's outright consent, or should be in ethical cases; fictional characters represent more of an attitude towards how both sexes 'should' be idealised. Additionally, half naked men don't appear to be as exploited because, usually, anything too raunchy or risque on their anatomy is completely covered. Women never get that same kind of respect.

[sungila]

I don't believe this perspective is true.

None of the X-Men are 'allowed' to be fat.

This question is unfair.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

I don't believe this perspective is true.

None of the X-Men are 'allowed' to be fat.

As in, McDonalds is allowed to be healthy.
Like, Doughnuts are not salad ingredients.
or...

Any fat superhero is with a bad person with a code name like FAT MAN or known by and defined as being just that: fat...or suffering being fat like it's torture or a test.

This question is unfair.

I argue that Fred Dukes might contest that last point, but I totally get what you're saying.

[Michael Watkins]

Girls love K-pop stars, timothee chalamet, tom hiddleston

i'll take your word on it. seems kind of niche (K-Pop sounds like something you'd eat while netflixing). i'm in the midwest. so maybe that skews my opinion on it. but i'm surrounded by guys trying their hardest to look like the duck dynasty guys.

[jwatson]

Both are exploitive when it comes to drawing; modelling, on the other hand, is very different for both parties. With modelling there's outright consent, or should be in ethical cases; fictional characters represent more of an attitude towards how both sexes 'should' be idealised. Additionally, half naked men don't appear to be as exploited because, usually, anything too raunchy or risque on their anatomy is completely covered. Women never get that same kind of respect.

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.

[CRaymond]

This question is unfair.

A more fair and specific question would be: why are male mutants drawn with more height, weight, and shape variation than their female counterparts?

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

Batgirl wasn't a character sold specifically on the premise of her being a sexpot - Black Cat very much is.

The cold hard fact is it works - I became a big fan of Birds Of Prey after Simone took it over, largely for her writing - but the main reason I picked up a comic I had zero interest in before was that they incorporated Huntress into it just after the Hush story-line gave her that new costume.
There's a reason why "sex sales" is a thing - it does.

So, maybe it's time to challenge what more the character to amount to? Or even just how sexiness is presented; a bit of variety now and then. Or, which seems the fairest; do the exact same thing to male characters as is to the female characters. Same standards means no more fighting; we can officially say "Everyone's exploited in the exact same manner."

It might work, sure, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged or contested; fun, practical designs can do the exact same job and bring in more variety of readership. We shouldn't have to cater to one ideal just because it's worked in the past; at least mix up the marketing strategy.

[spirit2011]

i'll take your word on it. seems kind of niche (K-Pop sounds like something you'd eat while netflixing). i'm in the midwest. so maybe that skews my opinion on it. but i'm surrounded by guys trying their hardest to look like the duck dynasty guys.

K-pop niche? it is fairly popular with girls. Loki is a very popular characters, chalamet is a star. I think there is more than just huge fisiculturist for women.

[Triniking1234]

K-Pop is some nonsense yankee girls who hang out on social media all day like.

A more fair and specific question would be: why are male mutants drawn with more height, weight, and shape variation than their female counterparts?

I think in mutant books we only get variation when they're non-human type characters like Shark Girl, Rockslide, Anole, etc.

[PetPigeon]

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?

[bladeofdarkness]

So, maybe it's time to challenge what more the character to amount to? Or even just how sexiness is presented; a bit of variety now and then. Or, which seems the fairest; do the exact same thing to male characters as is to the female characters. Same standards means no more fighting; we can officially say "Everyone's exploited in the exact same manner."

It might work, sure, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged or contested; fun, practical designs can do the exact same job and bring in more variety of readership. We shouldn't have to cater to one ideal just because it's worked in the past; at least mix up the marketing strategy.

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.

[jwatson]

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?

It has to be one where her powers doesn't effect her metabolism so a psychic maybe?