Comments on Buzzfeed's real women in comic book poses

[Politrukk]

The commentary these women give to add to their failed pictures is proof of their failure.

I can't fathom anyone taking this seriously.

 

[maninahat]

Every time I see that Spider-Woman pose used for an article, video, or whatever like this, it just makes me sigh. Not just because she's doing a pose that Spider-Man has also done on a cover, but the simple fact that Spider-Man has done tons of ridiculous poses, often highlighting his ass and crotch in comics.

I mean, yes, this is certainly an issue, but I would say that the Spider-_ are fairly equal in this regard.

I wouldn't say they're equal, because although Spiderman does do a lot of squatting and crawling, those aren't conventionally sexy poses for men. A woman squatting with her legs open is an FHM pose - but a guy doing the same thing isn't exactly what you'd expect from a Burt Reynolds photoshoot. With spiderman, you can be fairly confident the writers weren't aiming to put him in a sexy pose for the benefit of a presumed straight female audience.

 

[Batou667]

Buzzfeed? Trigger warning? Oh, this gon' be good.

Or not. Seriously, who feels the burning urge to write these painfully right-on articles, "bravely" tackling the most low-hanging fruit they could possibly find?

- Yes, comic book physiques tend to be idealised and exaggerated representations of the male, female, and sometimes nonhuman form.
- Every comic book artist has their own style which ranges somewhere between realism and straight-out cartoony.
- Some artists furthermore aren't very good at human anatomy beyond faces and the main muscle groups. Comic artists are also famously under a lot of pressure to meet deadlines. Screw-ups happen. The superheroes may not be mere mortals, but their artists certainly are.
- The fact that the "real women" can't replicate poses? Some of that is down to body type, some of it is due to trying to statically recreate a pose which in the comic is being done in action. That in itself doesn't convincingly make the point this silly article is presumably trying to make.
- Yes, some of the poses are flat-out impossible... but again, see the "artistic license" and "eh, artists screw up" points above.

When all's said and done though, would I rather read a comic drawn in the usual exaggerated style, or one featuring "real" women in sensible poses? The former, please, and I suspect I may be in the majority there. As long as the current style sells, it won't change.

 

[RebornKusabi]

So... I am confused. Why the fat women? Why make fat women do poses skinny women do everyday? Of course these fat women can't do Yoga poses- I am fat and can't do the poses they can do either. So why?

Now if they got, say, an actual gymnast or amateur yoga practitioner to do these poses or hell, a cheerleader from ('Murican) football to do them, then this would have been a great article. As is... it's just... pointless. Not even funny, just... pointless.

Now how about that Star Wars!? It's gonna kill at the box office next week :3

 

[Jingle Fett]

Are we supposed to be outraged that so much photoshop is required to make "regular" women (chunky/overweight is more accurate) match fictional comic book characters?
The real outrage is the amount of photoshop it takes to make Bruce Willis match Homer Simpson!!!!

Unrealistic standards I tell you!

 

[Paragon Fury]

Hi all!

Not enough content here for a Garwulf's Corner, but I can't resist playing with this a bit. So, first, here's the article: http://www.buzzfeed.com/kristinchirico/superheroes?bftw&utm_term=.knPwnw5kX#.hkmBLB1Z0

Comments on the poses and pictures, by each pose and picture in order:

1. I think this is one case where they got this one wrong. Sure, the pose itself is ridiculous, but the main thing that came to mind was that whoever was taking the photo wasn't high enough relative to the model to match the type of overhead perspective of the original picture.

2. They really missed the point on this one. It seems pretty obvious that in the original picture Wonder Woman is in the process of falling on her hindquarters as she's being attacked, so it's not so much as a pose as an action shot of falling down. Kudos for nothing that Wonder Woman doesn't appear to have any digestive tract or internal organs in the picture, but why doesn't Buzzfeed mention Wonder Woman's freakishly long right leg?

3. They nailed it. And, I would add of the original picture, SPINES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

4. Another good illustration of "SPINES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!" However, I have to admit that I'm really uncomfortable when the photo model is a clearly different body type than in the illustration, and then they make a big deal about photoshopping the pictures to change the body type. If the model was somebody with the same body type as the character in the original picture, I could see the point, but this just undermines what they're trying to say.

5. Not a lot of complaints, although I wish they had mentioned how in the original picture Storm has either a freakishly long torso or no internal organs to make that perspective look like that.

6. Another case of "SPINES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!" It's also another case of body type mismatch, but not enough attention is drawn to it to really complain.

Personally, I was disappointed - there's a lot of comic potential here, and a chance to make a few really good points in the process, but I think Buzzfeed really dropped the ball on this one. However, in the process of reading about the Buzzfeed article, I found out about this Tumblr, which does the "women drawn in impossible and ridiculous poses" REALLY well: http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/

You know, its probably already been pointed out, but I'm going to do it again.

For the good portion of these, the inability to maintain or assume the pose comes not from the ridiculousness of the pose itself, but because the woman in question in significantly overweight and/or out of shape.

And I'll say it again, a good portion of these aren't meant to be "held" or be standing poses - they're mid-action/mid-movement sequences, and your body and spine and can get into some pretty interesting shapes at those times.

Being exploited for sexy? Obviously? Physically impossible? Not at all.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Hi all!

Not enough content here for a Garwulf's Corner, but I can't resist playing with this a bit. So, first, here's the article: http://www.buzzfeed.com/kristinchirico/superheroes?bftw&utm_term=.knPwnw5kX#.hkmBLB1Z0

Comments on the poses and pictures, by each pose and picture in order:

1. I think this is one case where they got this one wrong. Sure, the pose itself is ridiculous, but the main thing that came to mind was that whoever was taking the photo wasn't high enough relative to the model to match the type of overhead perspective of the original picture.

2. They really missed the point on this one. It seems pretty obvious that in the original picture Wonder Woman is in the process of falling on her hindquarters as she's being attacked, so it's not so much as a pose as an action shot of falling down. Kudos for nothing that Wonder Woman doesn't appear to have any digestive tract or internal organs in the picture, but why doesn't Buzzfeed mention Wonder Woman's freakishly long right leg?

3. They nailed it. And, I would add of the original picture, SPINES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

4. Another good illustration of "SPINES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!" However, I have to admit that I'm really uncomfortable when the photo model is a clearly different body type than in the illustration, and then they make a big deal about photoshopping the pictures to change the body type. If the model was somebody with the same body type as the character in the original picture, I could see the point, but this just undermines what they're trying to say.

5. Not a lot of complaints, although I wish they had mentioned how in the original picture Storm has either a freakishly long torso or no internal organs to make that perspective look like that.

6. Another case of "SPINES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!" It's also another case of body type mismatch, but not enough attention is drawn to it to really complain.

Personally, I was disappointed - there's a lot of comic potential here, and a chance to make a few really good points in the process, but I think Buzzfeed really dropped the ball on this one. However, in the process of reading about the Buzzfeed article, I found out about this Tumblr, which does the "women drawn in impossible and ridiculous poses" REALLY well: http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/

You know, its probably already been pointed out, but I'm going to do it again.

For the good portion of these, the inability to maintain or assume the pose comes not from the ridiculousness of the pose itself, but because the woman in question in significantly overweight and/or out of shape.

And I'll say it again, a good portion of these aren't meant to be "held" or be standing poses - they're mid-action/mid-movement sequences, and your body and spine and can get into some pretty interesting shapes at those times.

Being exploited for sexy? Obviously. Physically impossible? Not at all.

 

[1981]

Those things I noted are VERY MUCH how women identify acceptable sexual partners based on visual identification.

"I have visually identified you as an acceptable sexual partner" is not a very good pick-up line. Humans do not work that way.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There are lots of camel toes in comic books(Note, I don't actually read many comics on a regular basis, but from what I remember that's not at all common)?[ Because comparing secondary sexual characteristics to primary sexual characteristics is rather disingenuous.

They're both sexual characteristics, genitalia or not.

No, just no.

How are primary sexual characteristics and secondary sexual characteristics not both sexual characteristics? Looks kinda cut and dried.

 

[The Eupho Guy_v1legacy]

Actually, just in terms of aiming for oversexualization and hitting Lovecraftian horror instead, there was this Neptunia game played by Loading Ready Run on their stream that managed to nearly put me into a fetal position. It was a dialogue scene where two scantily clad characters were talking to the player characters. And then, the breasts of one of the scantily clad characters bounced. On their own. Without her actually moving. Under their own power.

Breasts do not work that way, and when they do in a game, it is not sexy. It is terrifying.

Oh yeah. That game. That was weird. I'm not sure which was worse, the breast bouncing, or the fact that to get said bounce, the character models kinda looked like they were mildly asphyxiated. Heavy breathing for all!

Spoiler: For those that are interested...

 

[LetalisK]

It's almost like comic books do fantastical things. What's next? Breaking the laws of physics?

I think the important part isn't so much that something is absurd, but rather the motivation behind it.

 

[Angelblaze]

There are lots of camel toes in comic books(Note, I don't actually read many comics on a regular basis, but from what I remember that's not at all common)?[ Because comparing secondary sexual characteristics to primary sexual characteristics is rather disingenuous.

They're both sexual characteristics, genitalia or not.

Whereas overly muscled pecs, 8-packs, hewn thighs, and biceps upon their biceps are VERY common.

Yeah, its almost like muscles measure strength or something. If breast size and perkiness were a measure of strength it wouldn't be strange to see that on a woman, but they're not. We see big butts and perky tits because they're sexually appealing to the target audience.

Further more, if we're going to claim that any male character is sexualized, we first have to examine what the majority of women within the target audience of comic books find sexy.

Key Point here: Target audience. Few major comic books written before the last 3 years have been written and drawn with the female perspective of sexuality in mind, without it somehow being played as a 'haha take that!' at a majority of male comic goers (See: Grayson). I'd say the only one that comes close is Loki: Agent of Asgard and that's recent.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's almost like comic books do fantastical things. What's next? Breaking the laws of physics?

I think the important part isn't so much that something is absurd, but rather the motivation behind it.

Um, yes, I think that was kinda the point that was being made.

 

[JimB]

Key point here: target audience. Few major comic books written before the last 3 years have been written and drawn with the female perspective of sexuality in mind, without it somehow being played as a 'haha take that!' at a majority of male comic goers (see: Grayson). I'd say the only one that comes close is Loki: Agent of Asgard and that's recent.

I'm told the run of Young Avengers by Kieron Gillen and Jamie McKelvie attempted to play to female sexual tastes as well, though honestly, I didn't even notice it. I mean, the little gray-haired dude dances in his underwear in his room, and that's something the ladies like, is it? Okay, if you guys say so.

 

[Angelblaze]

Key point here: target audience. Few major comic books written before the last 3 years have been written and drawn with the female perspective of sexuality in mind, without it somehow being played as a 'haha take that!' at a majority of male comic goers (see: Grayson). I'd say the only one that comes close is Loki: Agent of Asgard and that's recent.

I'm told the run of Young Avengers written by Kieron Gillen and Jamie McKelvie attempted to play to female sexual tastes as well, though honestly, I didn't even notice it. I mean, the little gray-haired dude dances in his underwear in his room, and that's something the ladies like, is it? Okay, if you guys say so.

(Speaking as a woman) Aside from that, the Young Avengers run wasn't too sexual really. It was more ya-novellaesque. Then again, I perfer Wiccan physically and well, completely, over Novar.

 

[Paragon Fury]

You know, I have a friend of mine who is an actual comic book artist (albeit not a famous one so far). And we've been on this exact discussion just recently: I told him it's ridiculous and kinda sexist that women in comic books get portrayed in such an innatural way; he said he likes it because it's meant to be unrealistic just as the muscles of the male characters are.

But here's what I told him, and what I am now going to say here: yes, both men and women are unreal and exaggerated in comic books.... but WHY is it that the men are exaggerated to look badass, while the women are exaggerated to look sexy?

Add to this that I prefer realism to idealized (and blank) body types, and you get the picture.

Because both men and women in fiction are designed to have exaggerated attractive sexual characteristics.

Women in fiction are designed to look like exaggerated versions of Christina Hendricks, Jessica Alba, Jessica Nigri etc. I.E. women with good figures who look healthy and able.

Men are designed to look like exaggerated versions of Chris Evans, Chris Hiemsworth, those two guys from Twilight etc. IE: men who look strong and capable of providing.

The problem is that the male version gets taken too far; artists and designers WAY overdo the guys which turns off the women, while overdoing the women doesn't turn the men off nearly as much (especially since the bust-waist-hips thing can be used to really fuck with both our heads).

"But why are women only valued for their looks and men for their abilities?!"

Long version short; because that is the unique thing that women provide for their half of the equation for the human species. Men are largely interchangeable, and thus had to prove themselves otherwise - so men's abilities became the basis on which they are valued.

*Note; that when I say "valued" I mean by the base instinct part of the brain that has to look at something and make that snap judgement on it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Further more, if we're going to claim that any male character is sexualized, we first have to examine what the majority of women within the target audience of comic books find sexy.

Key Point here: Target audience. Few major comic books written before the last 3 years have been written and drawn with the female perspective of sexuality in mind, without it somehow being played as a 'haha take that!' at a majority of male comic goers (See: Grayson). I'd say the only one that comes close is Loki: Agent of Asgard and that's recent.

Well, I think the second part sort of touches on the issue with the first part. Given that comics tend to be written with men in mind, who is it that's really sexualising these men?

Male characters have been drawn this way for a male market for decades upon decades. I'd kind of say whether or not female readers find them sexy is incidental, as female readers are generally not the target audience. The short version of this is that women in comics are drawn to appeal to men and so are men in comics.

 

[Angelblaze]

Further more, if we're going to claim that any male character is sexualized, we first have to examine what the majority of women within the target audience of comic books find sexy.

Key Point here: Target audience. Few major comic books written before the last 3 years have been written and drawn with the female perspective of sexuality in mind, without it somehow being played as a 'haha take that!' at a majority of male comic goers (See: Grayson). I'd say the only one that comes close is Loki: Agent of Asgard and that's recent.

Well, I think the second part sort of touches on the issue with the first part. Given that comics tend to be written with men in mind, who is it that's really sexualising these men?

Male characters have been drawn this way for a male market for decades upon decades. I'd kind of say whether or not female readers find them sexy is incidental, as female readers are generally not the target audience. The short version of this is that women in comics are drawn to appeal to men and so are men in comics.

To add to that, its worth pointing out that women (on average) are more affected by audio stimuli, something still motion comics inherently can't do for obvious reasons. Hence why, even with men sexualization in comics, it may not exactly be the same

Spoiler: Sources

Personal experience
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/808430
http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/281562
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Are we supposed to be outraged that so much photoshop is required to make "regular" women (chunky/overweight is more accurate) match fictional comic book characters?

Overweight, really? Not even half of them could be considered overweight. The rest have a thin figure. We just don't think its thin because people think an hourglass figure is a sign of being thin when more often than not its a sign of either starvation or dying from terminal illness. You ridicule the notion of media setting impossibly high standards in this post yet are calling most of these women fat because they actually have internal organs.

I'd also add that body type and bone structure makes a BIG difference as to how somebody looks. There are three body types:

Ectomorph - tends to look tall and thin with narrow shoulders, even when carrying some extra weight. It is VERY difficult for an ectomorph to bulk up in such a way that they reach that inverted triangle shape. I have this body type, and one of the things it means is that I have a lot of trouble buying button-down shirts that fit due to the narrow shoulders alone.

Mesomorph - tends to be the natural beautiful person body type. They tend to have broad shoulders and an inverted triangle shape for men, and a defined hourglass shape for women. They also tend to have a very easy time putting on muscle and bulking up, or dropping fat.

Endomorph - tends to look thick and stocky. They put on fat more easily, and it is harder to take it off. However, particularly with men, even when they're not overweight, their body type can make them still look stocky or barrel-shaped. So, where ectomorphs tend to look thinner than they actually are, endomorphs often look heavier than they actually are. There was a Penn & Teller Bullshit episode where they put some endomorphs and mesomorphs through their paces, and the endomorphs were actually more fit. For women, this tends to look very soft and voluptuous, particularly if one has put in a lot of training and hard work (think Jennifer Lopez, but also note that Hollywood tends to have near-unhealthy beauty standards for both women and men).

So, I'm very reluctant to make a judgement about whether somebody is overweight from pictures like in the articles, just because it could be the body type looking like something it isn't.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Once could make the argument that it's art and therefor doesn't have to be realistic.