Comments on Buzzfeed's real women in comic book poses

[Robert B. Marks]

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

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, the intention of the art matters a lot. If you're doing a highly stylized art form and the drawing looks like a highly stylized art form, then there's nothing wrong. If, on the other hand, you're doing a realistic art form and aiming for something that looks like reality, and you're drawing all the women to look like a 15 year-old boy's sexual fantasies, and all the men to look like a 15 year-old boy's sexual power fantasies, then something wrong is going on.

Frankly, hypersexualization in art bothers me a lot less when the creator just owns it - there's nothing wrong with drawing sexy women in sexy spine-breaking poses because you like sexy women in sexy spine-breaking poses. Exuberant sleaze is always better than phoned-in sleaze (for example, see Piranha 3D, which is both over-the-top sleazy and awesome fun). The pretense that you're actually trying for gritty realism while claiming that a female character has a legitimate reason for wearing something that no sane person would ever wear when fighting crime is insulting and offensive, particularly when you're supposedly reaching out to a female audience while treating female characters as sex objects.

Or, put another way, pure sleaze is fine, adult fun. Sleaze masquerading as gritty realism is a disservice to the characters and the readers.

And on a semi-related note, if you ARE going to draw your characters in poses that require spines to do things that spines do not do, you should be prepared for people to poke fun at the silliness of it all (I mention this because it really was intended as a light-hearted thread, and I'd prefer to try to keep it that way).

 

[Something Amyss]

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/

I'd be inclined to agree. It's just that I don't think what women want is actually factored in. It's dudes preening for dudes in the first place. So any appeal would largely be a byproduct.

 

[NPC009]

This reminds me of the blog posts author Jim C. Hines did a few years ago. Basically, he tried to pose as the women (real, but probably heavily photoshopped women) on book covers and had a bad time. The message wasn't that it couldn't be done, but that these sexy poses were very unnatural and unpleasant.

Let's see if I can find a link... Here we go [http://www.jimchines.com/cover-posing/].

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

For a Lark, I decided to look at some male poses.

Spoiler

1.) Wolverine drawing his left leg so perfectly against his butt that it disappears, and then trying to wrap his right around the next of the hulk, while having his hips arched towards the Hulk's head and his upper and lower back is perfectly straight. All the while having his neck becoming a part of his chest it seems?

2.) Batman, being one of the most supreme human martial artists on Earth, would realize the stupidity of just using his upper back to try to pull a fighting bat beast out of the air. Batman, being one of the most intelligent people on earth, would realize he would have to use his entire lower body (which has the strongest high twitch muscle fibers and all of your core muscles for stabilizing against a fighting man bat beast) to get the most power in his pull and use his upper body to angle.

3.) Daredevil, being of the foremost martial artists of the marvel world... blah, blah, blah, there's no real grounding power in this move. I have no idea why would leave your hips center as he did unless it was just to show off his bulge. Which he does perfectly.

4.) Deadman simply broke the back of Steve Trevor

From a personal trainer standpoint, a lot of these poses are very disadvantageous and lacking power in the Kinetic Chain. From a Martial Artist standpoints, most of the moves are just down right stupid and lack power. I think it's just safe to say that comic book artists don't know what they are doing bodywise.

Will not discount the fact that they are trying to appeal to the sexy content of things. But they are also just really unaware how normal human bodies work. Which actually isn't that big of a detractor since they literally can say "Oh, that character doesn't have a regular human body"

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.

My response to that is very much yeah, male comic book characters are the epitome of sex for some of those who are attracted to men.

Here's something I really never knew in all my years of practicing martial arts: There's a large contingent of women who are attracted to men who know how to fight. Understand, I'm not saying guys who go out and look for fights over every little thing. I'm talking about guys who can defend themselves.

Now, the question becomes were the men specifically designed that way to turn on a woman? I am 50-50 on that. Simply because they are rippling with muscles and all are usually devastatingly handsome. But that's what we're programmed to think the Alpha males (the ones who are in charge and are likely to be the heroes) are supposed to be and look like. That just so happens to be what we teach girls to find attractive, and ergo do subsequently find attractive.

I think most artists would look exactly like their characters if they could. Because they know that women would respond and desire that character in real life. So, yeah, there's some obvious efforts to make men to be attractive.

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.

Add that to the fact that most of the Spider family can move their musculature and joints in a fashion that normal humans simply can't replicate, and it just adds up to a poor choice as an example and a knee jerk reaction.

If I can't do the poses of a gymnast, I can't say that they are unreasonable. I have my lack of conditioning as a gymnast to blame for that. If I can't move like a snake, I can't say they are impossible. I'm just not set up like a snake. They have a very real point, but they are doing it in a way that's very, very damning. Comic book geeks can rightfully point out that most of these women aren't even human in the same standards we know (Freaking Diana was made out of clay!). And those who aren't in the know will think we are just trying to protect our way of thinking.

Both sides will think they are valid and no understanding will come from this.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, the intention of the art matters a lot. If you're doing a highly stylized art form and the drawing looks like a highly stylized art form, then there's nothing wrong. If, on the other hand, you're doing a realistic art form and aiming for something that looks like reality, and you're drawing all the women to look like a 15 year-old boy's sexual fantasies, and all the men to look like a 15 year-old boy's sexual power fantasies, then something wrong is going on.

Frankly, hypersexualization in art bothers me a lot less when the creator just owns it - there's nothing wrong with drawing sexy women in sexy spine-breaking poses because you like sexy women in sexy spine-breaking poses. Exuberant sleaze is always better than phoned-in sleaze (for example, see Piranha 3D, which is both over-the-top sleazy and awesome fun). The pretense that you're actually trying for gritty realism while claiming that a female character has a legitimate reason for wearing something that no sane person would ever wear when fighting crime is insulting and offensive, particularly when you're supposedly reaching out to a female audience while treating female characters as sex objects.

Or, put another way, pure sleaze is fine, adult fun. Sleaze masquerading as gritty realism is a disservice to the characters and the readers.

And on a semi-related note, if you ARE going to draw your characters in poses that require spines to do things that spines do not do, you should be prepared for people to poke fun at the silliness of it all (I mention this because it really was intended as a light-hearted thread, and I'd prefer to try to keep it that way).

I thought I was being Devil's Advocate. Oh well whatever. In any case, are superhero comics really aiming for a realistic depiction of reality though? I know some of the Anime though was brought up on that eshergirls page certainly aren't. I don't know. I don't read comics and I don't know what the comic artist's intentions are.

I do agree however that hypersexualization is better if it's taken tongue in cheek. It's like the guy who drew the art for Dragon's Crown. He just openly admitted that he just liked big boobs and that's why he drew the sorceress that way. No beating around the bush.

 

[1981]

http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/281562

The study didn't include men, so no comparison can be made.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/

"Women who viewed clips from erotic films made by women or men reported higher levels of sexual arousal to the woman-made films". I'm not surprised. My disdain for these types of studies is so strong that what surprised me is that they even thought of that.

If you asked men to assess their locker room erections, I suspect they'd report a high "incongruence between cognitive and physiological arousal".

"Previous studies have used women taking oral contraceptives" which commonly cause reduced or even absent libido.

Wow, your obtuseness in the face of evidence that your supposition of female figures having their secondary sexual characteristics emphasized more then male figures secondary sexual characteristics was completely and utterly wrong is flat out amazing. That's like saying that piss and diarrhea are both bodily waste products. True, but completely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that male secondary sexual characteristics are just as exaggerated, if not more so, than female secondary sexual characteristics. End discussion. You want to start whining that women don't find the same exaggeration attractive, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

You pick random words and use their dictionary definitions as arguments with no explanation of how they relate to the matter at hand. Women's breasts are far more sexualized than men's chests. That's why breasts need to be covered up in situations where men can go topless. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, or that it should change. It's just how it is. Also, we're talking about comic book action poses, not PowerPoint presentations of human anatomy. Body language can convey something different in two poses even when the same body parts are visible.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

My response to that is very much yeah, male comic book characters are the epitome of sex for some of those who are attracted to men.

Here's something I really never knew in all my years of practicing martial arts: There's a large contingent of women who are attracted to men who know how to fight. Understand, I'm not saying guys who go out and look for fights over every little thing. I'm talking about guys who can defend themselves.

Now, the question becomes were the men specifically designed that way to turn on a woman? I am 50-50 on that. Simply because they are rippling with muscles and all are usually devastatingly handsome. But that's what we're programmed to think the Alpha males (the ones who are in charge and are likely to be the heroes) are supposed to be and look like. That just so happens to be what we teach girls to find attractive, and ergo do subsequently find attractive.

I think most artists would look exactly like their characters if they could. Because they know that women would respond and desire that character in real life. So, yeah, there's some obvious efforts to make men to be attractive.

Excuse me, but trust me when I say those male superheroes are generally NOT meant to be sexually attractive. They are meant to be strong; they are meant to be what a straight man wishes to be - but in no way they are meant to be sexy for women.
Some women out there might find them attractive; that does not mean that Hulk or Cable are designed specifically to be sexually appealing. Yes, even with all those bulging muscles.
While female characters are designed specifically to be sexually appealing.

Both characters, male and female, are exagerated. But there is absolutely no doubt the males are designed for power, the women for sexyness. And that's the point here. That's why superhero comic books used to be a boy's yard until a few years ago.

Google "Power is Sexy". A lot of your points sort of contradict each other.

My point is while comic book writers didn't go out of their way of saying "I need to turn on women with this cover of batman!", they are still drawing in cues of what is considered to be Attractive and Powerful.

Why do Straight Men wish to be Powerful, strong, and commanding? Simple. Women respond to it. Women like it. If a man can get a woman by being geeky, scrawny, and poor... gyms would close, clothing store will only have t-shirts and jeans, and all fortune 500 CEOs would have double x's. While the position of women's gender roles have changed, the male gender role still remains the same: Be Strong, Be Reliable, Be Ready to Provide.

The Hulk has muscles, but he is not in control. He's a mindless beast... and yeah, there are some women into it.

Exploitation and Titillation is very, very real in comic books. I simply state it goes both ways. Why I don't find a rippling six back and broad shoulders attractive, it's true that a majority of women do so. Also, it's true that a lot of women just don't for looks. A good deal need the charisma, the commanding and controlled nature that oozes out of a lot of these male leads. Designed to be so. Batman, Martian Manhunter, Thor, Superman, Wolverine, Cyclops, Catman, Namor, Aquaman, Iron Man, Captain America, Deathstroke, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Black Panther, Nightwing, Daredevil, Angel, John Constantine, Doctor Doom, Black Blot, Doc Samson... It actually might be easier just to list the characters who DON'T fit the stereotype.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

double post. I think this is my first one. Yay for first!

 

[Therumancer]

It should also be noted that what's missing from this argument is actual super-powers. For example Spider-Woman has enhanced physical abilities that go beyond the norm and is mutated into a part spider, leading to her assuming spider-like poses with some frequency, Spider-Man does the same thing. Black Widow is a former ballerina who is also supposed to be a perfect physical specimen on the level of multiple Olympic athletes wrapped into one. To me it looks like Wonder Woman, who I might add is an immortal super-being with physical abilities well beyond the norm, is supposed to be off balance in that picture so it's not so much a "pose", I could be wrong but it seems like Storm might be about to fly which means she's literally defying gravity.

I'm sure there are counter-arguments, but the point is that humans aren't supposed to be able to measure up to super humans. They are called "Super heroes" even the ones that aren't supposed to have actual "powers" for a reason. It's also pretty co-ed when it comes to silliness, I mean consider the contortion Spider-Man uses every time he fires his web shooters.

When it comes to Spider-Man I believe the very old individual issue "Guide to the marvel universe" series actually listed physical elasticity as part of his power set going back a long time. Now to be fair that particular "Spider Person" has a different power set involving bio-energy manipulation and pheromones among other things, but also has the enhanced physical abilities so I'd guess some of that transfers over and showing her in spider-like poses, especially seductive ones given that she's literally superhumanly attractive and a sexual predator (even if she tries to control this to some extent) is appropriate, I mean she's basically part spider.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

Excuse me, but trust me when I say those male superheroes are generally NOT meant to be sexually attractive. They are meant to be strong; they are meant to be what a straight man wishes to be - but in no way they are meant to be sexy for women.
Some women out there might find them attractive; that does not mean that Hulk or Cable are designed specifically to be sexually appealing. Yes, even with all those bulging muscles.
While female characters are designed specifically to be sexually appealing.

Both characters, male and female, are exagerated. But there is absolutely no doubt the males are designed for power, the women for sexyness. And that's the point here. That's why superhero comic books used to be a boy's yard until a few years ago.

Ah yes, the power fantasy argument.

Is it not possible that women do not strive for the exaggerated body depicted? If men are a power fantasy, is it not possible that women can be a fantasy of beauty and femininity? I'm not saying this is a healthy attitude to have, but it certainly is possible. I know that these comic books are made for the male audience, and the perspective is limited, but let's think about heroes. If a male hero is powerful, an artist would think something to differentiate him with the common man, something like "So powerful he is like a Greek god or ubermensch." If a woman is a hero, the artist would think "So beautiful she is like a goddess, or fierce like a Valkyrie." It be a conclusion drawn from association with culture. It is very limited thinking, but the artist is not some pervert.

Things are distorted for a pleasing image. For a more scientific explanation, these artists deliberately or undeliberately create a caricature of the male or female form when they optimize for aesthetic pleasantness. The average male body is subtracted from the average female body (or vice versa) and the difference is amplified. The result for women is exaggerated breasts, hip ratio, round buttocks and feminine positions gone anatomically incorrect. You can see this in sculptures of Greek or Indian goddesses. For men, it's muscle tone, broad shoulders, not much hip going on, but not necessarily bulky, which can also be seen in art. By exaggerating the male or female characteristics, we have amplified how male or female someone looks, which can be a function of reproductive hormones. So what we have is super masculine men, interesting to look at for men, and super attractive to women when not ovulating. We also have super feminine women, also interesting to look at for women, and super attractive to men.

 

[Silvanus]

By exaggerating the male or female characteristics, we have amplified how male or female someone looks, which can be a function of reproductive hormones. So what we have is super masculine men, interesting to look at for men, and super attractive to women when not ovulating. We also have super feminine women, also interesting to look at for women, and super attractive to men.

Do you think the depictions of men in comic books are actually super-attractive to women? I doubt it pretty strongly. It seems a rather one-sided equation to me.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

By exaggerating the male or female characteristics, we have amplified how male or female someone looks, which can be a function of reproductive hormones. So what we have is super masculine men, interesting to look at for men, and super attractive to women when not ovulating. We also have super feminine women, also interesting to look at for women, and super attractive to men.

Do you think the depictions of men in comic books are actually super-attractive to women? I doubt it pretty strongly. It seems a rather one-sided equation to me.

I don't know, I don't read comics. What comes to my head during these arguments is Superman and his gigantic barrel chest. In my opinion he is comically muscular it becomes less attractive. What I think women find attractive is sculptures of Greek gods or Michelangelo's David. I'm not a woman, so I wouldn't know. However, not all male superheroes are superman levels of muscular, and some can fit into that category.

It seems tone is the more visually appealing aspect instead of muscular hypertrophy, at least cultural standards withheld. A primitive man probably cannot have the body builder shape solely by lifting heavy things once in a while. So I think the bulky superheroes come from the exaggeration of physique as power. It is also reasonable to think that larger muscles are required to win fights consistently. I always thought that the reason these male superheroes are gigantic, is we think that they have to be in order to survive if we ignore their super power. Also, since women are not frequently in combat, we don't really have much to draw on for what a female fighter would look like. All I can think of on the top of my head is Boudicca, shield maidens, and really sexy goddesses.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Well, it's Buzzfeed.

That's really all you need to know before clicking on the thing.

Also, "Warning: This post contains photoshopped images of bodies that some may find triggering."

Sincerely. Fuck these simpering, weak-willed sacks of flesh.

Ugh. Nobody tell these folks about the Shaft Tilt or, really, anime in general. They'd have an aneurysm.

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

I dunno. I'd get pretty damp if a girl said that to me in a bar.

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.

None of them have a "thin" figure. 1-3 are about average.

4, 6, and possibly 5, depending on her height, are clearly overweight.

None of them are gymnasts or, you know, superheroes with toned, athletic builds.

 

[Silvanus]

I don't know, I don't read comics. What comes to my head during these arguments is Superman and his gigantic barrel chest. In my opinion he is comically muscular it becomes less attractive. What I think women find attractive is sculptures of Greek gods or Michelangelo's David. I'm not a woman, so I wouldn't know. However, not all male superheroes are superman levels of muscular, and some can fit into that category.

I can only speak from experience, of course. I read a fair number of comics (though I'm nowhere near as voracious as some), and I'm into guys. It's pretty rare to come across something I'd consider either attractive, or tailored towards that interest (though one example that does come to mind is Nightwing).

It seems tone is the more visually appealing aspect instead of muscular hypertrophy, at least cultural standards withheld. A primitive man probably cannot have the body builder shape solely by lifting heavy things once in a while. So I think the bulky superheroes come from the exaggeration of physique as power. It is also reasonable to think that larger muscles are required to win fights consistently. I always thought that the reason these male superheroes are gigantic, is we think that they have to be in order to survive if we ignore their super power. Also, since women are not frequently in combat, we don't really have much to draw on for what a female fighter would look like. All I can think of on the top of my head is Boudicca, shield maidens, and really sexy goddesses.

I'd generally agree that that's why we see excessively muscular male superheroes. However, even when we have female superheroes, it's never exaggerated to anywhere near the same extent, and we still get all those ass-shots. This is even when the woman is ostensibly cast in a similar role as the men, such as Wonder Woman, Giganta or Wasp.

 

[Something Amyss]

Excuse me, but trust me when I say those male superheroes are generally NOT meant to be sexually attractive. They are meant to be strong; they are meant to be what a straight man wishes to be - but in no way they are meant to be sexy for women.

Well, yes, but I think he inadvertently has a point--these images are what men think women find attractive. And considering the list of people arguing in here seems to be similar to virtually every thread about "what women want," it's not surprising there's a spillover in those terms, either.

Effectively, it's men telling women what they find sexy because it's what they find sexy.

For comparison, here is the same exact character, when she is designed to be a sexual fantasy:

Spoiler

Is...is she supposed to be attractive in this?

 

[I can't enter my old name]

I'd generally agree that that's why we see excessively muscular male superheroes. However, even when we have female superheroes, it's never exaggerated to anywhere near the same extent, and we still get all those ass-shots. This is even when the woman is ostensibly cast in a similar role as the men, such as Wonder Woman, Giganta or Wasp.

I agree that there is heavy sexualization of women because it is aimed at men, and probably drawn by men. When a male artist has to draw the form of the breast or the buttocks, most likely it will be to the proportion of he finds appealing. It makes sense to draw what is aesthetically appealing and imitate that, and discard what doesn't work or looks unbalanced. A male's idea of balance and proportion could differ from a female artist.

I think muscular women didn't become a thing because it would drastically throw off the proportion of the female form. I think most female superheroes are thin and toned with large breasts, which is because of exaggeration of said form. However, for a muscular superhero like She-Hulk (who isn't really that muscular compared to male superheroes), you can notice that her breasts are gigantic. If they weren't as large and prominent, then her body would look like a man's body. The size of the breasts have to be exaggerated so at first glance you would think, yes this is a woman. Some depictions have the hourglass figure, but they tone down her muscle size. Balance wise if she has giant muscles everywhere but puny external obliques, she would look top-heavy and the proportions would look extremely unnatural.

 

[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.

Burt Reynolds? That's the most relevant sex symbol you can think of? Zac Efron? Ryan Gosling? Ryan Reynolds?

Not touching this debate with a ten foot pole, I'm just very disappointed in you.

I don't know, kids today...Back in my day, Burt Reynolds was the yard stick for everything, from sensible mustache growth, to the appropriate way to back hand your colleagues.

 

[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!!!!

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.

Is there a point you want me to respond to or are you just angry because of the proximity of the word overweight to the word women? Because regardless my point still stands.

If you re-read my post, you'll see that I wasn't ridiculing the notion of the media setting impossibly high standards. I was ridiculing the notion of humans comparing themselves to fictional cartoon characters and getting upset that it can't be reached by the average person (let alone overweight ones).
Women 4,5, and 6 are all overweight and 2 is on the heavier side of average.

Secondly you're being really judgemental and offensive, not to mention culturally insensitive to say that hourglass/thin "more often than not it's a sign of either starvation or dying". Frankly it says more about you than anything else. Believe it or not, but the whole world doesn't share your american/western european 68% obesity rate and where the average woman weighs 166 pounds.

 

[JimB]

Is...is she supposed to be attractive in this?

Never underestimate how much the male mind can compartmentalize when it comes to sexual attraction. Yes, she's a half-human freak who should be dead because her waist is more narrow in circumference than her skull and therefore cannot possibly hold all the organs she needs to continue to live, and yes, she's covered in verminous rodents who have surely spread lice and parasites throughout her, but DEM TITTIES, YO

Seriously, I'm not even kidding. I have no idea if it's trained, inherent, or both, but my general experience is that a man is very much more capable of breaking a woman down into component parts and focusing on individual pieces divorced from the whole than a woman tends to be capable of, or at least more than she tends to be inclined to do.

 

[josemlopes]

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.

Actually its not the writters but the artists and when drawing a character that might as well be naked since the suit is so damn tight it doesnt matter if its supposed to look sexy or not, the character will be in his peak with an interesting pose, and since its a character more connected to agility and speed he will certainly have a more "sexy" pose to show off how bendy and agile he is. Basicly the sexy look isnt the cause but the symptom.