Suicide Squad's Cara Delevingne: 'Superhero Movies Are Totally Sexist'
289 replies, posted
[QUOTE=demoguy08;48071656]False dichotomy. A few cherrypicked examples of male sexualization doesn't disprove the fact that women are systematically sexualized in media & elsewhere.
And if your point was to say, "but men are sexualized [I]too![/I]", yeah so what? "Men are sexualized so women should be able to handle it" isn't a valid argument.[/QUOTE]
Prove to me women are somehow more systematically sexualized in media & elsewhere than men.
If you're going to argue these examples are all cherrypicked then you better be able to prove that the examples of women being sexualized, and your further point that they are sexualized [I]more[/I] than men, are not cherrypicked as well.
I really don't know how you design a character that isn't "sexualized". The human body is inherently erotic. You can't draw something that doesn't appeal to someone, somewhere. I don't see how someone going out of their way to draw something that isn't appealing to them or the majority of consumers makes the character less "sexualized".
Why does it matter whether or not someone draws something that appeals to them personally?
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;48071588]those novels are pretty much straight pornographic. they're erotica.
they're not equivalent whatsoever to comic books or videogames or movies which are not designed specifically to arouse you sexually, but simply entertain you.[/QUOTE]
Sex sells.
Especially the "totally not sex, yet really is" kind.
If anything they need the play the 'sex' angle better instead of ditching it.
Another thing 2 dimensional characters: off the top of my head I can't name a show with developed male characters where the female characters aren't also well developed (I can name a few where the females are developed but the males aren't but I'm cool with that because of what the show is trying to get across or the target audience it has). I think we really need to get to the point where we can stop thinking in terms of male and female characters and instead just in terms of characters.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;48071656]A few cherrypicked examples of male sexualization[/QUOTE]
Now name five male protags who aren't hot pieces of hunk.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48071791]Prove to me women are somehow more systematically sexualized in media & elsewhere than men.
If you're going to argue these examples are all cherrypicked then you better be able to prove that the examples of women being sexualized, and your further point that they are sexualized [I]more[/I] than men, are not cherrypicked as well.[/QUOTE]
Sure, I can just point to a few studies:
[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/social_issues-july-dec13-sexualization_12-21/[/url]
[url]http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2011/08/12769.html[/url]
Both of these have looked at a huge number of examples.
[quote]Sociologists at the University of Buffalo reviewed more than 1,000 Rolling Stone cover images published over four decades. They found that sexualized representations of both men and women have become more common over time. In the 1960’s 11 percent of men and 44 percent of women on the covers were sexualized while in the 2000’s, 17 percent of men and 83 percent of women were sexualized. However, they concluded that women were much more likely to be “hypersexualized” — showing a combination of multiple sexualized attributes.[/quote]
[quote]In a 2008 study of 1,988 advertisements from 50 well known American magazines, researchers from Wesleyan University found that half of them show women as sex objects. A woman was considered a sex object depending on her posture, facial expression, make-up, activity, camera angle and amount of skin shown.[/quote]
I also tried finding some studies focusing more on male sexualization but couldn't find any proper ones in my short search.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;48071879]Now name five male protags who aren't hot pieces of hunk.[/QUOTE]
Marv is ugly as sin [sp]but still fucks like a beast apparently[/sp]
[QUOTE=demoguy08;48071744]Ah you are correct, this is indeed the point of the comic. Sorry!
The first point still stands.[/QUOTE]Men are sexualized systematically too, it's just that for some reason when its men no one gives a shit and gives you a ton of bullshit excuses, when it's women being sexualized, suddenly it's a huge issue. That's kinda sexist, don't you think? Even so, what's wrong with sexualizing people? Humans are very sexual by nature.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;48071879]Now name five male protags who aren't hot pieces of hunk.[/QUOTE]
Homer Simpson
Dennis the Menace
Paddington Bear
The Inbetweeners guys
Max Payne?
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48071898]
Max Payne?[/QUOTE]
He's kinda out of shape in 3rd one but besides that he's quite hawt. Especially in a suit.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48071898]Homer Simpson
Dennis the Menace
Paddington Bear
The Inbetweeners guys
Max Payne?[/QUOTE]
You know I'm willing to bet that he wasn't including children and anthropomorphic teddy bears.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;48070090]"[I]I[/I] don't find buff guys attractive, therefore no female ever does"[/QUOTE]
Hell why stop there, that strawman says that gay people don't matter, like let's take JoJo's as an example since it's already been used a lot this thread. With a bit of Japanese gay culture sprinkled in to explain just how strawmanny this is.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48069716]
[thumb]http://i31.mangareader.net/jojos-bizarre-adventure-part-5-vento-aureo/1/jojos-bizarre-adventure-part-5-vento-aureo-1703273.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE]
This is how the majority of dudes look in yaoi(Gay hentai) Marketed to women, this is called a bishounen(Pretty Boy) style, which is what the strawman comic used.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/Vi6W8PM.jpg[/t]
This is Bara(Lit. Rose, means Men's Love) and goes closer to what most westerners would call bears, strong muscly men, which is marketed to gay men.
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaox_SwuKGY]You might already know about the most popular mens love thing without even knowing it.[/url]
[QUOTE=demoguy08;48071891]Sure, I can just point to a few studies:
[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/social_issues-july-dec13-sexualization_12-21/[/url]
[url]http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2011/08/12769.html[/url]
Both of these have looked at a huge number of examples..[/QUOTE]
Except these studies tend to be biased due to what exactly constitutes sexualization, and as the articles mention, "hypersexualization".
If you pick more criteria for women than men when it comes to what "sexualizes" them then of course you're going to find more cases of women being represented in a sexual way.
The entire concept of sexualization (even more so for hypersexualization) inherently applies more to women than men because the criterias as to what constitutes sexualization apply more to women than men.
i feel the best solution is to sexualize everyone since not sexualizing people is puritan as fuck and i know that this country was founded on christian values but sex is a part of our lives that we can't pretend doesn't exist
[editline]28th June 2015[/editline]
this isn't the 1600s anymore, we don't need to burn witches because we're afraid they're too sexy
Why is sexualization bad? It doesn't have to be! But when it imposes gender roles and ideas of how females or males should act or look - that's when it takes a turn for the worse. This is really an issue that is somewhat outside the scope of comics but since some of you touched upon the question, perhaps the point should be raised.
When you sexualize someone you reduce that person to an object, to something that is defined exclusively by its aesthetic attributes, in short. More properly defined:
[quote]sexualization: when a person's value comes only from her/his sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics, and when a person is sexually objectified, e.g., made into a thing for another's sexual use.[/quote]
When this is done on a systematic basis, in media, say, it has harmful effects - especially on young people. This is covered in [URL="http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf"]this study.[/URL]
In short: when done in excess, it's bad.
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48069412]A comic I've seen that I feel explains the argument better than I can:
[t]http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/2011-12-02-sexy.png[/t][/QUOTE]
Lmao
"first google this"
"Batman built for dexterity but still swoler than 90% of the planet"
"oh no im a straight white male im uncomfortable in this comic i made myself so that means i win"
Also tell me many women wouldn't kill to look like female comicbook characters and be strong as fuck, isnt that exactly what a power fantasy is? Seeing something that represents a "better" version of yourself and identifying with it?
[QUOTE=demoguy08;48071987]Why is sexualization bad? It doesn't have to be! But when it imposes gender roles and ideas of how females or males should act or look - that's when it takes a turn for the worse. This is really an issue that is somewhat outside the scope of comics but since some of you touched upon the question, perhaps the point should be raised.
When you sexaulize someone you reduce that person to an object, to something that is defined exclusively by its aesthetic attributes, in short. More properly defined:
When this is done on a systematic basis, in media, say, it has harmful effects - especially on young people. This is covered in [url=http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf]this study.[/url][/QUOTE]
I really don't follow
so because someone has a great butt and I like it that means I stop thinking of them as a person?
[QUOTE=demoguy08;48071987]Why is sexualization bad? It doesn't have to be! But when it imposes gender roles and ideas of how females or males should act or look - that's when it takes a turn for the worse. This is really an issue that is somewhat outside the scope of comics but since some of you touched upon the question, perhaps the point should be raised.
When you sexualize someone you reduce that person to an object, to something that is defined exclusively by its aesthetic attributes, in short. More properly defined:
When this is done on a systematic basis, in media, say, it has harmful effects - especially on young people. This is covered in [URL="http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf"]this study.[/URL]
In short: when done in excess, it's bad.[/QUOTE]
sexualization on its own reduces people to objects, i agree on that, but comics usually focus entire stories and has characterization that makes the lads and ladies of superhero proportions be more than just objects. superheroines aren't (usually) just there to look pretty, they usually have powers and go about saving people, just like the superheroes. if you remove the entire context from the comics, it would just be sexualizing people, but there's more to it than just the pictures. i feel as though it applies far more to things like ads and magazine covers, which i find to be far more damaging sexualization than anything comics could come up with (unless we're talking about that dude who draws all his women by tracing porn stills but i don't think anyone takes him seriously anyways)
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48071995]I really don't follow
so because someone has a great butt and I like it that means I stop thinking of them as a person?[/QUOTE]
Let me take an example:
[IMG]http://www.adweek.com/files/adfreak/AdFreak new/ChapStick.jpg[/IMG]
What is the point of this image?
A) To illustrate a woman reaching down behind the sofa to retrieve her lost chapstick, thus raising your interest?
B) To evoke a reaction to her butt, thus raising your interest?
[editline]28th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48072027]sexualization on its own reduces people to objects, i agree on that, but comics usually focus entire stories and has characterization that makes the lads and ladies of superhero proportions be more than just objects. superheroines aren't (usually) just there to look pretty, they usually have powers and go about saving people, just like the superheroes. if you remove the entire context from the comics, it would just be sexualizing people, but there's more to it than just the pictures. i feel as though it applies far more to things like ads and magazine covers, which i find to be far more damaging sexualization than anything comics could come up with (unless we're talking about that dude who draws all his women by tracing porn stills but i don't think anyone takes him seriously anyways)[/QUOTE]
Yeah I agree, and as I said, we're sort of reaching beyond the territory of comics now. I just thought it was important to remember what the core of the issue is.
i don't think we actually disagree on anything, then.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;48072062]Let me take an example:
[img]http://www.adweek.com/files/adfreak/AdFreak%20new/ChapStick.jpg[/img]
What is the point of this image?
A) To illustrate a woman reaching down behind the sofa to retrieve her lost chapstick, thus raising your interest?
B) To evoke a reaction to her butt, thus raising your interest?[/QUOTE]
My first reaction was wondering what is with the hand on the right side coming UP from the couch.
If you are unable to think of someone as both a person and as sexually appealing then maybe the issue is that you're a fucking asshole and not that society is objectifying women.
in situations in which there is no chance for characterization and the sexiness has nothing to do with the product sold, such as that chapstick ad, i completely agree that that is dumb as fuck, useless, and can be harmful. if it were something like a lingerie ad then it would make more sense for it to be sexy
[QUOTE=demoguy08;48072062]Let me take an example:
[img]http://www.adweek.com/files/adfreak/AdFreak%20new/ChapStick.jpg[/img]
What is the point of this image?
A) To illustrate a woman reaching down behind the sofa to retrieve her lost chapstick, thus raising your interest?
B) To evoke a reaction to her butt, thus raising your interest?[/QUOTE]
so "sexualization" is showing a woman's butt?
I'm sorry, I just don't really see what the exact definition of "sexualization" is here. It seems like you're pointing at things that people probably might find arousing and saying "that's sexualization".
And that aside, I don't see how that relates to character design in comic books.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48072096]in situations in which there is no chance for characterization and the sexiness has nothing to do with the product sold, such as that chapstick ad, i completely agree that that is dumb as fuck, useless, and can be harmful. if it were something like a lingerie ad then it would make more sense for it to be sexy[/QUOTE]That chapstick ad can be harmful? Are you for real now? That picture is the worst example you could show when it comes to sexualization in ads. And you say it can go as far as being harmful? Holy shit man what the fuck?
Also, the ideal of the body as muscular, well defined, devoid of any imperfection and visible health related conditions is not an unhealthy thing. Some people are morons who think this ideal of a body is the one and only way of looking good and these people will [I]always[/I] be morons, but idealizing the human body by essentially picturing it as strong, healthy, in good shape and able to perform satisfying sexual feats is [I]not[/I] a bad thing, and it [I]doesn't[/I] inherently objectifies people.
And once again, unless you're a literal fucking idiot, having a certain ideal of the body does not mean that this ideal should be your actual standard for beauty. People love quirks and imperfections in other people, they always have, and outside of individuals with mental issues or individuals with some form of pathological obsession, everyone thinks that way.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48072116]That chapstick ad can be harmful? Are you for real now? That picture is the worst example you could show when it comes to sexualization in ads. And you say it can go as far as being harmful? Holy shit man what the fuck?[/QUOTE]
in the greater context of a lot of ads like that, yeah it can be harmful, but i don't personally think in a "omg this will fucking destory everything" more in a "ok we can do better than this". i don't even think that specific example is extremely harmful, i just think it needs to be offset by having an add in which a muscular dude in a shirt that is tight enough to define his muscles but not enough to look unrealistic is stretching up to grab something.
if ads featuring both women and men have the same sorts of things then i'd be fine with it. i'd rather that then just removing it completely
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48072153]in the greater context of a lot of ads like that, yeah it can be harmful, but i don't personally think in a "omg this will fucking destory everything" more in a "ok we can do better than this". i don't even think that specific example is extremely harmful, i just think it needs to be offset by having an add in which a muscular dude in a shirt that is tight enough to define his muscles but not enough to look unrealistic is stretching up to grab something.
if ads featuring both women and men have the same sorts of things then i'd be fine with it. i'd rather that then just removing it completely[/QUOTE]
I really don't see why
like, even reading that study linked above, forgive me if I'm wrong, but that seemed to be more about how harshly critical and openly hostile media can be towards girls who don't reach a certain beauty standard. It's about that culture, not about pictures of butts.
Butts are not subtly mind controlling society into hating women.
look man i just want more hot guys in chapstick ads is that too much to ask
Anyone remember Starfire's new 52 comic
[img]http://i.imgur.com/MH7B41A.jpg[/img]
or Harley Quinn
[img]http://i.imgur.com/syG9P0z.jpg[/img]
DC has since stepped back from this nonsense but jesus fucking christ was it stupid
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.