Thread Drift: The Male Physique in Comics and Other Media

[Sea Hound]

Are you talking about me because all I wanted to do was have a discussion on men that aren't the beefcake super muscular types

Maybe because you used the word "sexualize" in the title, and it can mean different things to different people? Some people use it in the sense that a character is deliberately portrayed as being ****; but it can also be used in the sense that characters are oversexualised to the point where everything else about the character is secondary or unimportant visually.

Men in comics are certainly sometimes, (not very often in my straight female opinion) deliberately drawn to appeal to the eye of people attracted to men. (There's nothing wrong with that, or with drawing attractive females for that matter).

Anyway, here's a highly suggestive scene, with unusual for the male characters.

image.jpg

(As an aside why is s.exy not allowed as a word by the site? Is it really such a filthy word that it has to be hidden by four stars?)

[dragonmp93]

I was responding to you saying that we live in a culture that's too sensitive. My point was that today's culture isn't necessarily more sensitive than in the past, but that people simply have more venues to express that they're upset.

As the Horrible Bosses movie showed us, you can make a joke about anything how long the punchline is a straight male.

[ed2962]

As the Horrible Bosses movie showed us, you can make a joke about anything how long the punchline is a straight male.

I haven't seen Horrible Bosses, but I have seen Family Guy and I have listened to Howard Stern, I'd those are a couple of easy examples of purposely un-PC humor where being a straight white male isn't the punchline...

Also, the OP started the thread where she expressed her admiration for the looks of a few characters that are straight white males. So, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that someone is out to bash white dudes in this thread?

[Raye]

Reading through the last bunch of pages that got posted since last I looked, it's becoming clear that a lot of people really do not understand what women find attractive. It's not just muscles=hot. When people talk about 'male power fantasy' and then you compare that to romance novels, as being equivalent, it's missing the point. The 'power fantasy' isn't about the muscles, it's about, you know, the POWER, the muscles there merely help illustrate that power visually, and are just one aspect of it. Conversely, the physique on the romance novel covers is also just one aspect. Just because the same physique that can be used in a 'male power fantasy' can also be attractive to women doesn't mean the concept of a power fantasy doesn't exist, or that the comic characters geared toward that appeal to women just because ONE aspect overlaps. Other aspects of both are different, mainly how the characters are posed and their personalities, when it comes to comics, and those aspects are very important. Basically, yeah, I get that a whole lot of male characters in comics have nice bodies, but because of how they are written and drawn in other ways, they are not presented as something where it's clear that women are supposed to find them attractive, there is a lot more than just possessing a nice body that goes into making a male character attractive to women. Personality, relationships, interests, it's a long list and can vary from character to character. Any well rounded character does have a chance of meeting the criteria, generally. But, while there may be some overlap, and women may find some characters that fit the trope attractive, the 'power fantasy' is a thing, and it is more directed at men than women.

Also, trust me, while i agree that it is more acceptable for women to find other women attractive, (and i think it is a problem that traditional ideas of masculinity are restrictive to the point where male nudity and stuff has to be made non-sexual in some way in order to avoid making guys uncomfortable) how the women were depicted in comics, especially during the 90's are NOT appealing to women and girls in the same way as Barbie or fashion models. There is a line between admiring another woman's beauty and rolling your eyes at the ridiculousness of the sexualization going on, and a lot of mainstream comics were waaaaaaaay over that line. They're getting a lot better, though.

He is a good example. Well most of the guys in young avengers are but since they are teenagers I dont count them

He is 21, actually, so totally legal. Most of them are 19-21 now. The youngest in the latest run, at least physically, was Kid Loki, then he got aged up to 20ish, followed my Miss America who i think is 17(?) the rest are older. (though yeah, considering i started reading their adventures when they WERE like 16 or so, i get how it's weird to think of them in a sexual way)

[Bafflement]

Reading through the last bunch of pages that got posted since last I looked, it's becoming clear that a lot of people really do not understand what women find attractive. It's not just muscles=hot. When people talk about 'male power fantasy' and then you compare that to romance novels, as being equivalent, it's missing the point. The 'power fantasy' isn't about the muscles, it's about, you know, the POWER, the muscles there merely help illustrate that power visually, and are just one aspect of it. Conversely, the physique on the romance novel covers is also just one aspect. Just because the same physique that can be used in a 'male power fantasy' can also be attractive to women doesn't mean the concept of a power fantasy doesn't exist, or that the comic characters geared toward that appeal to women just because ONE aspect overlaps. Other aspects of both are different, mainly how the characters are posed and their personalities, when it comes to comics, and those aspects are very important. Basically, yeah, I get that a whole lot of male characters in comics have nice bodies, but because of how they are written and drawn in other ways, they are not presented as something where it's clear that women are supposed to find them attractive, there is a lot more than just possessing a nice body that goes into making a male character attractive to women.

You're rather missing the point yourself. The posters weren't saying that romance novels were actually 'male power fantasies', they were pointing out how silly it is to automatically classify any male character you don't personally find attractive as a 'male power fantasy', since many are not designed that way and don't appeal to male readers on that basis.

There are a range of portrayals in comics, from straight-up Liefeldian designs that are clear power fantasies for teenage boys, to male characters that aren't (usually) sexualised or intended as a 'male power fantasy', but have muscular or toned designs to convey that they are active superheroes. And then there those male characters which are more commonly sexualised, but even they have a fair bit of variation in how that sexualisation is expressed. A female comic character isn't going to appeal to every straight male reader either, but some readers not finding her attractive doesn't mean she isn't sexualised.

[harpier]

Well, what's sexually attractive is entirely subjective, for example, Wolverine in Claremont's Uncanny run; dude was always half naked(sometimes completely), smoking cigars, and acting like a cocky alpha male. However, the vast majority of people aren't attracted to hyper masculine, hirsute men. Nevertheless, every character is sexual to someone.


My guess is that the typical portrayal of men('muscular beefcakes') and women(overtly sexualized) is simply pandering to the majority of readers(straight males).

Eventually, and to depart a bit from Marvel, hyper-masculine hirsute man as sex symbol—and absolutely sexualized—was done perfectly by Willingham and Medina with Bigby Wolf in Vertigo's Fables. I recall a scene late in the first arc in which Snow White watches him get out of a pool. It was definitely a moment that both recognized and celebrated the potential for men to be objects of sexual desire without it being a cheap demonstration of their machismo.

However, I guess where I differ from many of the other posters on this thread is that I believe the context in which bodies are shown are more important than what is shown. Other posts have definitely implied similar thinking by suggesting the relation impressive male bodies have to female characters is important in understanding what (or rather whose) fantasy or desire is in play, but I would take it farther than that. The panels with Hercules, for example, feature a naked male body, but they're far less about its potential for eliciting desire than it is about imposing (rather aggressively, if humorously) that body on others.

You're right in that most (if not all) bodies are attractive to someone, but the better question—and the one I think the OP is asking—is what bodies are we encouraged to consider sexually even if those bodies aren't typically ones we'd be attracted to. As the majority of comic book readers are straight men, what bodies of male characters are those readers asked to imagine or consider as objects of sexual desire, not as one who is that character (as would be the case in the aforementioned "male power" fantasies) but one who wants that character? While personal sexual preferences may help inform how one appreciates different illustrated bodies, they shouldn't exclusively dictate it, particularly when the story demands another perspective. Ideally, and overall I think comics are moving in a more promising direction, those stories and their artwork would celebrate and facilitate a variety of erotic gazes—female as well as male, gay as well as straight—and erotic bodies.

[Trident]

You're rather missing the point yourself. The posters weren't saying that romance novels were actually 'male power fantasies', they were pointing out how silly it is to automatically classify any male character you don't personally find attractive as a 'male power fantasy', since many are not designed that way and don't appeal to male readers on that basis.

There are a range of portrayals in comics, from straight-up Liefeldian designs that are clear power fantasies for teenage boys, to male characters that aren't (usually) sexualised or intended as a 'male power fantasy', but have muscular or toned designs to convey that they are active superheroes. And then there those male characters which are more commonly sexualised, but even they have a fair bit of variation in how that sexualisation is expressed. A female comic character isn't going to appeal to every straight male reader either, but some readers not finding her attractive doesn't mean she isn't sexualised.

This so much.

Good post.

[Of Atlantis]

Okay so I'm a little confused by a lot of people's posts (not exclusive to this thread). Are people generally lobbying to have male characters sexualized more to even things out or to lessen the sexualization of women in comics? Because I would think the first option would make things worse...

[ed2962]

Okay so I'm a little confused by a lot of people's posts (not exclusive to this thread). Are people generally lobbying to have male characters sexualized more to even things out or to lessen the sexualization of women in comics? Because I would think the first option would make things worse...

It didn't start as a political thread...

The Thread actually started over in the Marvel boards. The OP started by talking about male characters they thought were "hot" and expressed a preference for men who were kinda lean as opposed to overly muscular men. So people started talking about hotmale characters and artists who draw hot men. One person brought up what I thought was a legit point which is that sometimes men have to deal body issues just as women do. After that though some folks went into the whole "Tumblr feminists are oppressing me," thing and posting pictures that actually contradict whatever "war against hetro males" point they were trying to make.

[The Darknight Detective]

Those aren't male power fantasies. You'll notice that on the majority of those, the head or eyes are not visible.
That makes a difference.

And then there's the poses and the expressions.

They all look like they're in heat. Not like they're trying to be tough.

In comics we get tough guys with girls in heat.

Would the average heterosexual man buy a comic book featuring covers with men in romance-novel poses? I'm thinking sales would drop precipitously if that were done. IOW, I agree with you - it's not the same thing.

[The Darknight Detective]

Okay so I'm a little confused by a lot of people's posts (not exclusive to this thread). Are people generally lobbying to have male characters sexualized more to even things out or to lessen the sexualization of women in comics? Because I would think the first option would make things worse...

Yeah, I wouldn't be happy with that myself. What people I think are saying is, whatever the standards, it should be balanced for both genders. The problem is, however, that the average comic-book reader is male, so would desexualizing females or sexualizing males increase sales? Probably not in the short term, which is why we have what we have today.

[the4thpip]

Okay so I'm a little confused by a lot of people's posts (not exclusive to this thread). Are people generally lobbying to have male characters sexualized more to even things out or to lessen the sexualization of women in comics? Because I would think the first option would make things worse...

In the spirit of an equal time rule, I want, nay I demand, visible erections on the JLA's satellite on a regular basis.

[Arvandor]

Would the average heterosexual man buy a comic book featuring covers with men in romance-novel poses? I'm thinking sales would drop precipitously if that were done. IOW, I agree with you - it's not the same thing.

No. But comics with sexualized women on the covers are not all that popular either. Not nearly as popular as comics with action figure men on the covers. Sexualization is irrelevant.

[The Darknight Detective]

No. But comics with sexualized women on the covers are not all that popular either. Not nearly as popular as comics with action figure men on the covers. Sexualization is irrelevant.

I agree the action shots get the most representation, but the chances of seeing a guy in a sexualized shot are practically nil. On the female side, however, it has happened numerous times going all the way back to the Golden Age. Why? Because guys, being the primary reader of superhero comics, will buy the latter, but not the former.

[ed2962]

Here's Vogue's top 10 male models. http://www.vogue.com/slideshow/12929...0-male-models/

Tyson could actually pass for a superhero. And maybe a couple of the other guys. The rest though, I'm not so sure