Marvel VP Speaks Mind on Manara Spider Woman Butt Cover

[Lightknight]

As a female reader, I just want equality with the men. Fine, you want to draw Spider-Woman with a suit that is so tight it MUST be sprayed on latex with her butt cheeks spread so wide you can park a jumbo jet between them, looking like she's presenting herself to the entire city of New York? Sure. But do the same for Spider-man now too.

Equality means that you, as a consumer, are 1 vote and that every other consumer is also 1 vote. It does not mean that women consumers are given exactly equal representation even if the consumer demographic leans towards one side rather than the other. Otherwise, that would be inequality with one side being given a voice that is disproportionate to their numbers.

This would be like us demanding equality on the cover of romance novels in which males are often depicted as half naked stud muffins.

Not only that, but this is a non-standard cover. It's a rare limited edition cover that isn't the main one so you're just being critical of art existing at all which is frankly ridiculous.

In any event, men are also sexualized in comics. It's just that the female form has more commonly exaggerated features. The picture you posted above are non-sexy depictions of males because males are generally considered sexier with a toned ass and not a bubble ass like you depicted. That is, however, attractive on females. Sorry if you find that offensive but I'll give you a hint, bubble-assed girl art isn't made for you specifically because you're not the only consumer.

Believe me, if men had a thing like crabs have where a large right-arm is depicted as sexy/attractive. Then our superheros would have absolutely massive ones.

As is, we're culturally attractive by muscle definition whether bulk or toned depending on the viewer. We don't really have anything else. Maybe boyish and then there's entire genres dedicated to you. You can maybe make an argument that rugged vs boyish features in general are there too.

Either way, none of it's as exaggerate-able as breasts, butt, legs, and eyes that are seen as particularly attractive in females. A massively exaggerated male like the Hulk is too much. So the standard but very toned type is the one they go with.

So, sorry, but in a sexually dimorphic species you're just going to have to deal with the fact that we are different.

FYI, Sif is one of my all time favorite badass female heroes. I'm still waiting for them to make her mainstream. Hell, scratch the female part, she's one of my all-time favorite heroes.

That's the way I wish things were... (Well, besides that Hulk.)
Although, most superheroes, male or female, were skin-tight suits, it's the poses and what's emphasised that's key.

I'm starting to do a fair bit of drawing now for a project of mine, and I hope I never find reason to hold back on the sexualisation of any of my characters. If they can "get away" with what they do, I'm shooting for the same, but for everyone.

Sure, the poses emphasize features which are deemed particularly attractive culturally. A grown man with a bubble butt would actually be deemed less attractive. Women with large breasts are. To the point that women will actually undergo a medical procedure to look that way. Men with large breasts? Not so much.

So you're exactly right, both sexes are depicted in skin tight clothing. Both are as sexualized as they're going to get. Complaining that men aren't exaggerated in the same way as women is a lot like complaining that society doesn't find neck fat attractive.

 

[Trishbot]

Equality means that you, as a consumer, are 1 vote and that every other consumer is also 1 vote. It does not mean that women consumers are given exactly equal representation even if the consumer demographic leans towards one side rather than the other. Otherwise, that would be inequality with one side being given a voice that is disproportionate to their numbers.

Apologies in advance, but I'm going to disagree strongly with some of your assertions.
The latest study indicated nearly 46% of comic readers are female, yet it remains a vastly male-dominated industry on the creative side. By those numbers, there IS a vast inequality with one side (the male side) being given a voice that is disproportionate to the number of female readers who follow comics.

This would be like us demanding equality on the cover of romance novels in which males are often depicted as half naked stud muffins.

Oh, trust me, female readers HAVE been demanding this, and one reason Marvel movies in particular have a very strong following of female readers is because of the frequent half-naked stud muffins on screen:

(Oooh Chris Hemsworth...)

(Oooh Chris Evans...)

(Oooh Chris Pratt...)

Marvel is dominating the box office with an army of shirtless Chrises. Keep it up, Marvel!

Not only that, but this is a non-standard cover. It's a rare limited edition cover that isn't the main one so you're just being critical of art existing at all which is frankly ridiculous.

ALL art is open to critique and criticism. Can I not criticize the pose, anatomy, artistic rendering of fabric and skin and muscle and bone? They have full freedom to create whatever they want; and we the readers can totally criticize it. It doesn't have to just be about the implausible butt; I've criticized Greg Land for tracing porn and Rob Liefeld for his bad art. Art is open to criticism, no matter who created it or what it's for. That's what artistic criticism is all about.

In any event, men are also sexualized in comics. It's just that the female form has more commonly exaggerated features. The picture you posted above are non-sexy depictions of males because males are generally considered sexier with a toned ass and not a bubble ass like you depicted. That is, however, attractive on females. Sorry if you find that offensive but I'll give you a hint, bubble-assed girl art isn't made for you specifically because you're not the only consumer.

The point of that comic wasn't to show them with bubble butts... it was to show them sticking out their butts PERIOD. In the original Avengers poster, every male is facing forward triumphantly, while Black Widow was sticking out her butt. The artist had fun with it by doing the reverse and showing how silly it looks when the men do it. Even if men look good with a firm butt, they weren't showing it off on the poster like Black Widow was. Look up "The Hawkeye Initiative" for more info on this pretty funny double standard:
http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/

As is, we're culturally attractive by muscle definition whether bulk or toned depending on the viewer. We don't really have anything else. Maybe boyish and then there's entire genres dedicated to you. You can maybe make an argument that rugged vs boyish features in general are there too.

The age of Schwarzenegger is pretty long gone, and he was never quite a sex symbol. Women are often depicted for male desire, but male strength and masculinity is depicted as male power fantasy. It's still create by, and for, male audiences. Muscles can be sexy, but it's about the situation... so Arnold flexing isn't sexy, but a scene of Thor pointlessly taking off his shirt with his stunning good looks, humble charm, and naive innocent of his own sexual prowess is attractive to many women (*raises hand*). Marvel executes this well on screen.

You're totally right about "boyish" being a popular thing too. There's a reason Twilight is big with women instead of Conan, a reason even that Peter Parker in the new movies is totally a hot "Edward-lite" supermodel:

(truly the face of a loveless nerd that struggles to get beautiful women to notice him)

Either way, none of it's as exaggerate-able as breasts, butt, legs, and eyes that are seen as particularly attractive in females. A massively exaggerated male like the Hulk is too much. So the standard but very toned type is the one they go with.

And women don't like the same things? A study of women found that women like "dreamy eyes" and "kissable lips" more than height, muscles, or... other sizes of things. You can have men with smoldering eyes, luscious styled hair, rugged by trimmed facial hair, athletic bodies, etc. Robert Downey Jr. is, what, 5'9" and hardly beefcake material (same for Tom Hiddleston on the build), but they have such charming personalities and dreamy features...

So, sorry, but in a sexually dimorphic species you're just going to have to deal with the fact that we are different.

Being different is hardly the problem. It's being treated differently that's the problem. It's an issue that goes beyond comics to real life situations, where an attractive female co-worker is treated differently than her male co-worker, or, from my own experiences, how a female gamer is treated playing Call of Duty compared to how a male player is treated.

Sure, the poses emphasize features which are deemed particularly attractive culturally. A grown man with a bubble butt would actually be deemed less attractive. Women with large breasts are. To the point that women will actually undergo a medical procedure to look that way. Men with large breasts? Not so much.

You aren't helping. It is a sad, unfortunate, and quite frankly SICKENING "cultural" mindset that makes a woman feel that mutilating her breasts with artificial implants and plastic surgery to "be attractive" and pleasing to men is something is still a problem. The culture is wrong, and I won't apologize for taking a stand against it. So men feel a woman needs bigger breasts? Then men need to change their standards of beauty, not women surgically altering themselves to fit their deranged sexual fantasies.

So you're exactly right, both sexes are depicted in skin tight clothing. Both are as sexualized as they're going to get. Complaining that men aren't exaggerated in the same way as women is a lot like complaining that society doesn't find neck fat attractive.

That's because "fat" is itself unhealthy, and people are attracted to people who are, in general, healthy. That includes proper dental hygiene, bathing daily, dressing nicely, staying active, and taking care of your body.

But even that's still an insanely narrow view of beauty and what women desire. I mean, Batman to me isn't attractive because of his brooding scowl, for instance...

(DC should've totally cast a guy named Chris in the upcoming movie and had him take his shirt off...)

 

[Trishbot]

Edit: Whoops! Hit "Quote" instead of "Edit". Sorry for the double-post.

 

[UberGott]

main difference between those two covers is that the focal point is where spidey's looking at, on the bottom, where there are more elements to focus on, while his ass is aimed away at the camera towards the background, whereas the other cover pulls her ass closer to the camera and she's not really looking at anything in particular, so there's nothing else for the reader to look at also

COMPOSITION, people

Hey, neat! Someone on the other end of this argument who isn't using the oppression of homosexuals to bolster an argument on basic staging and composition.

I actually agree that the whole Manara piece is posed and framed the same way a porn pin-up would be; there's no distraction, and her "assets" are clearly the focus. But as I've already pointed out, that's... kind of what Manara does. She isn't dry humping a gargoyle, she isn't knocking a villain out with her breasts, and her cameltoe isn't literally in close-up. Manara has behaved himself more than most people will ever realize, but the fact that people are still bristling at the raised bum on the cover proves how easy it is to work in degrees of this sort of thing.

Is the sexualized? Of course it is. It's drawn by a guy who's sole career is based around making women look sexy and sexualizing literally anything he can think of. I just don't see that as an inherently bad thing, particularly when this is an entire art form in which drawing essentially-naked people is the norm to begin with.

If I remember right, Andrew Garfield talked about how he couldn't wear undies in his ASM costume without getting visible panty-lines. It's not a specifically male/female thing, it's just got a lot less baggage with the dudes. I'd argue that the previous Spidey cover is highlighting his arse, too, but there's enough going on to distract from that with the big cocoon thing that it's not the sole focus of the piece. As I've said before, I don't personally care if art is sexualized, but it's absolutely a difference worth being pointed out.

Milo Manara doing porn isn't relative to the conversation I think. I mean if the difference between art and porn isn't the naked risque posing lady but whether or not there is a penis around her and if she is interacting with it in the art then I don't care about the distinction.

As weirdee pointed out, staging is everything. Fun fact, though: It's far, far easier to find photo references of sexy women crawling around doing soft-porn shoots than it is to find reference books with them looking confident, strong or heroic. There's also very little incentive for a male-centric medium like comics to sexualize male characters simply because they assume the majority of their audience doesn't care about all that.

Is sexualization an inherently a bad thing? I don't think so. Does it subtly limit artists who aren't consciously trying to sexualize female subjects? It just might. When even Naoko Takeuchi (Sailor Moon) admits to using porn magazines as pose-references, it's clear the pool of material to draw from for women has a particular style, and artists trying to use life as the source for their work are inevitably going to be limited to the material that already sells... ie; porn.

Masamune Shiro is one the best artists japan has and he does porn regularly. The difference between Shiro and Milo though is that he's actually good.

I adore Masamune Shirow, but he's got pretty funky anatomy issues. They're just a very specific issue (a generally lanky, lean distortion) that happens to compliment his overall design aesthetic, and as such it's far easier to forgive them than the somewhat more naturalistic Manara style. The closer you try to mirror reality, the more obvious the small problems stand out.

And yeah, Manara does all sorts of distorted, fishy faces and I doubt he's trying to. It bugs me, but hey, we can't all be DaVinci...

It's relevant to point out when a porn artist is doing a non-porn piece because... well, look at this conversation. Porn artists are trained and hone their skills to sexualize everything; it's literally their job. When they do something that isn't supposed to be sexualized, those fetishes and focuses suddenly make sense. I'm not disparaging Shirow or Manara by saying they make porn, I'm simply explaining that his work is what it is... and Marvel knew that. Anyone upset that this is a sexually charged cover should be less upset with Manara for doing what he always does and more upset with Marvel using him specifically to get a rise out of the demographic that they know it upsets in the first place.

 

[JimB]

The moment feminists begin to realize that the girl jogging down the street in short juicy boy shorts and sports bra is also a woman should be the moment they realize that some girls want to be sexy and that sexy isn't an evil attribute.

I'm gonna stop you right there, Lightknight, because while your point about the jogger is valid, it's misleading in this context. Spider-Woman is not a jogger. She is also not real. She did not choose to wear that outfit or to strike that pose. Milo Manara chose for her to strike that pose while wearing that outfit, and he chose those things in order to sell her to us with her ass being the primary selling point. You don't really get to use real female autonomy as justification for sexual objectification that no real, actually existing woman made a choice to participate in.

This cover is pure filth. It should be illegal for women to wear tight clothes. Also they should stop having hips, butts or a waist. Women having hips is disgusting and shameful.

As I was saying to Lightknight, KingsGambit, this is not a salient point because Spider-Woman is not a woman. She does not have clothes, hips, a butt, or a waist. She has what a primarily male creative team gives her, and they are at best making a burlesque show of the book by selling us references to sex (as opposed to simply pimping it by selling actual sex). It does not reflect an attitude I can appreciate.

 

[rob_simple]

I'm just gonna copy-paste my opinion on the matter from a blog I commented on:

[On the Cover, itself]
This looks like one of those drawings that was originally depicting something very different and was hastily recoloured to become a superhero. If you tweaked the saturation just a tiny bit then suddenly you have a straight up naked woman in matching boots and marigolds.

This might also explain the freaky Castlevania floating medusa head thing she's got going on: I imagine it was originally a woman shrieking in pain as her vertebrae began to compress to breaking point so as to accommodate her arse being straight up in the air like a presenting cat.

[On the artists response to criticism.]
I absolutely hate when people try to distance themselves from controversy by saying, 'ugh, aren't there bigger things to worry about?' If you take that logic to it's natural conclusion, then the stuff going on in Ferguson, Gaza, worldwide poverty and the ever expanding rich-poor divide, LGBT rights and the fight for true equality for all races and gender...none of it matters, because we should all just be worrying about the eventual heat-death of the universe.

That being said, I think he was right about a couple of things and super wrong about others. There's nothing wrong with drawing a sexy picture of a woman, true enough, but context is always important, and it seems ironic that he would complain about sexualising a woman in an advertisement to sell something, when that is exactly what the purpose of a cover is: to draw attention and sell the content inside.

Finally, I simply don't believe his claims that that is a totally natural way to climb something: I read an entire manga about mountain-climbing and not once did any of the (predominantly male) characters ever stick their arse straight up in the air while simultaneously keeping their chest flat to the ground, because it is physically impossible or at the very least wildly impractical.

 

[Shuu]

It's odd considering there's been no shortage of Spider-Woman covers in the past of the exact same nature. Pretty much all the covers of the Spider-Woman: Agent of S.W.O.R.D. series, as I recall.
Was there similar outcry back then? I can't remember. There may have been.
All I remember of Spider-Woman recently (as in, the last few years) was a part in one book where she gets captured by baddies and is rescued by fellow Avengers members, and she's completely naked for some reason. But to be fair... The same thing's happened to Hawk Eye during the whole Dark Reign event.
Come to think of it, Marvel's generally fairly even handed when it comes to full nudity. Like at the end of the whole Spider Island event;D

 

[JimB]

Was there similar outcry back then?

I am a somewhat cynical person, Shuu, so may I ask you, why do you bring that up? The only reasons I can imagine are either idle curiosity or an attempt to discredit any complaints now by implying there is some minimum length of time a person must complain about comic book covers before his complaints can be taken seriously; but I am aware that cynicism skews my perspective, and if you brought up the question for some other reason I have not yet guessed, I would genuinely appreciate being educated.

 

[Shuu]

Was there similar outcry back then?

I am a somewhat cynical person, Shuu, so may I ask you, why do you bring that up? The only reasons I can imagine are either idle curiosity or an attempt to discredit any complaints now by implying there is some minimum length of time a person must complain about comic book covers before his complaints can be taken seriously; but I am aware that cynicism skews my perspective, and if you brought up the question for some other reason I have not yet guessed, I would genuinely appreciate being educated.

Calm down, I was implying no such thing. Just wondering if (since I don't think there was outcry back then) that mabye this is an indication of Superheroes entering the mainstream eye between then and now, that those covers from about 5-10 years ago didn't attract much ire, but this one did. How might comics' new status effect how it carries itself? Only time will tell, but between the shift in visual stlye like Batgirl's new getup and the noticably ethnic new Ms. Marvel, I think we're starting to see comics make more of an effort not to restrict themselves to long time readers who already accept the old ways.

 

[RealRT]

I'll just leave it here

 

[JimB]

Calm down, I was implying no such thing. Just wondering if (since I don't think there was outcry back then) maybe this is an indication of superheroes entering the mainstream eye between then and now, that those covers from about 5-10 years ago didn't attract much ire, but this one did.

I apologize for giving offense, and thank you for your explanation. As I said, my perspective is a bit skewed, and I sometimes require help correcting it.

 

[weirdee]

Well, yeah, I get it, Manara does sexy images. I ain't blaming him for drawing them. He was hired to make a sexy image, he drew said sexy image, and then he was paid for it. That's his job.

However, it was Marvel that paid him for it, and they did so with the purpose of selling it as a "collector's item" so that they could still drive sales with an ass pinup with the assumption that since they aren't making as many of those in this particular situation (and even then, the normal cover is still guilty of it but they make a halfassed attempt at covering up by not completely shoving her butt into the focal point), that this means that they don't have to even own up to doing it, past, present, or future. And now, instead of any kind of actual owning up to it, all they're really saying is that they know people are talking about it (and that this is somehow achieving something as opposed to them actually thinking about it beyond the bottom line), and that their standards are fine for the overall industry and they should still be able to do this because there's technically body paint spandex on top of the butt and we should be satisfied that we got them to do that much, like they would treat a ratings board by running some thin black bands over some nipples and say that sexy, butt shifting poses are natural for spiders (which also covers all the other mooning heroes which weren't bit by spiders). That's pretty much it.

If they just said, "well, we sell comics with female superheroes by showing their T&A as much as we possibly can", I would be fine with it. If they think that being that kind of company publicly would hurt their sales, they should either change their company to actually be what they say they are, or they need to stop fucking lying to everybody for sales.

 

[Lightknight]

Apologies in advance, but I'm going to disagree strongly with some of your assertions.
The latest study indicated nearly 46% of comic readers are female, yet it remains a vastly male-dominated industry on the creative side. By those numbers, there IS a vast inequality with one side (the male side) being given a voice that is disproportionate to the number of female readers who follow comics.

Do you have citation to back that up?

Having been to comic book stores during high-traffic business hours, I'm certainly able to provide personal experience that would laugh at the notion. But maybe you've got a legitimate study that would prove my personal experiences and the assumption of nearly everyone to be wrong. I'm willing to be taught if I'm wrong. So cite.

You also need to demonstrate what qualifies as "comic readers". Are we talking the consumers of superhero readers or are we including manga which would be a different genre all together. Please keep in mind that in nearly all forms of media there are distinct differences in preferences of genre by gender. Movies, video games, and literature. I would be shocked if comics somehow side stepped the same thing for some reason.

This would be like us demanding equality on the cover of romance novels in which males are often depicted as half naked stud muffins.

Oh, trust me, female readers HAVE been demanding this, and one reason Marvel movies in particular have a very strong following of female readers is because of the frequent half-naked stud muffins on screen:

Spoiler

(Oooh Chris Hemsworth...)

(Oooh Chris Evans...)

(Oooh Chris Pratt...)

Marvel is dominating the box office with an army of shirtless Chrises. Keep it up, Marvel!

You may misunderstand. I have no problem with the half-naked stud muffins. What I'm saying is that demanding they not be sexy would be like us demanding that romance novels not have the half naked stud muffins in them either. It just doesn't make sense when people want sexy.

As stated, if men had a feature that was easily exaggerate-able and legal to depict in regular comics (sorry no massive trouser snake for the lady viewers that are into that thing) then we would have those in spades. As is, toned and in shape with rugged or boyish features are basically all we have as male archetypes of beauty. Women do have the sleek version but they also have the exaggerated bumps version too. It's just the way things are. As you said, health is attractive to us. So wide hips, voluptuous breasts and butts, long beautiful legs, these are all also signs of health so we're naturally attracted to them.

ALL art is open to critique and criticism. Can I not criticize the pose, anatomy, artistic rendering of fabric and skin and muscle and bone? They have full freedom to create whatever they want; and we the readers can totally criticize it. It doesn't have to just be about the implausible butt; I've criticized Greg Land for tracing porn and Rob Liefeld for his bad art. Art is open to criticism, no matter who created it or what it's for. That's what artistic criticism is all about.

Sure, but this is a non-mainstream cover. It's a rare piece that you actually have to seek out. So criticizing Marvel for it existing is silly. If it was the regular cover then I'd understand that too. But honestly, why not have marvel superhero porn. It's completely their prerogative to do so and I bet they'd make money at it. Oh no, it's a sexy drawing, someone call the police! Have we really become such prudes that we can't handle artists drawing a picture that isn't even naked? Art should be criticized for it's merits, not criticized for existing at all. What kind of artistic criticisms do you have about it? Please remember that you've already acknowledge that male superheros are also regularly cast in sexy roles.

By the way, have you ever read Astro City comics? Basically a non-DC/Marvel superhero universe that is written by classic writers and drawn by the likes of Alex Ross.

Check out the first page of their issue on the Samaritan (their version of Superman):

http://www.crossovercomics.ca/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/AstroCityv1.1.jpg

It isn't technically nudity as there's no gonads to be seen. But male characters are sexualized all the time too. All genders are sexualized. Getting pissed off that other characters who happen to be female do too like its unequal treatment is just expressing ignorance that males are too. It would be unequal to shy away from female sexuality like it's bad. Hell, that'd be sexist.

In any event, men are also sexualized in comics. It's just that the female form has more commonly exaggerated features. The picture you posted above are non-sexy depictions of males because males are generally considered sexier with a toned ass and not a bubble ass like you depicted. That is, however, attractive on females. Sorry if you find that offensive but I'll give you a hint, bubble-assed girl art isn't made for you specifically because you're not the only consumer.

The point of that comic wasn't to show them with bubble butts... it was to show them sticking out their butts PERIOD. In the original Avengers poster, every male is facing forward triumphantly, while Black Widow was sticking out her butt. The artist had fun with it by doing the reverse and showing how silly it looks when the men do it. Even if men look good with a firm butt, they weren't showing it off on the poster like Black Widow was. Look up "The Hawkeye Initiative" for more info on this pretty funny double standard:
http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/

But butts aren't generally seen as desirable male features unless they're toned. So the point is silly if it's just to show them stick their butts out because female butts are a desirable feature.

The age of Schwarzenegger is pretty long gone, and he was never quite a sex symbol. Women are often depicted for male desire, but male strength and masculinity is depicted as male power fantasy. It's still create by, and for, male audiences. Muscles can be sexy, but it's about the situation... so Arnold flexing isn't sexy, but a scene of Thor pointlessly taking off his shirt with his stunning good looks, humble charm, and naive innocent of his own sexual prowess is attractive to many women (*raises hand*). Marvel executes this well on screen.

Are you saying that women don't want to look that way? Because I know a plastic surgeon in town that has a mansion to disprove your theory.

Look, muscle isn't just about bulk craziness. It can also be about tone. All those pictures you posted are our society's common attractive man and those are the default bodies we see our heroes having.

As I stated, males really don't have the exaggerated features as points of attraction. If we have larger features it's often seen as a detractor. Toned ass, toned/chisled muscles, these are where it's at for men. Women have breasts, butt, and legs. These are easily exaggerate-able and those being larger are often associated with attraction.

To the point that women will undergo surgery if they feel inadequate in that way.

You're totally right about "boyish" being a popular thing too. There's a reason Twilight is big with women instead of Conan, a reason even that Peter Parker in the new movies is totally a hot "Edward-lite" supermodel:

Spoiler

(truly the face of a loveless nerd that struggles to get beautiful women to notice him)

Twilight actually has both character types. Boyish and Rugged. In fact, they completely played off of this fact in that "Vampire name" vs "werewolf name" campaign that was everywhere. Sorry, I only saw the first one and have forgotten their names.

And women don't like the same things? A study of women found that women like "dreamy eyes" and "kissable lips" more than height, muscles, or... other sizes of things. You can have men with smoldering eyes, luscious styled hair, rugged by trimmed facial hair, athletic bodies, etc. Robert Downey Jr. is, what, 5'9" and hardly beefcake material (same for Tom Hiddleston on the build), but they have such charming personalities and dreamy features...

Dreamy eyes and kissable lips. I'll have my artists get right on that. Haha.

It's still not the same as the features of women that entire body parts are exaggerated. You're talking about generic face features.

So, sorry, but in a sexually dimorphic species you're just going to have to deal with the fact that we are different.

Being different is hardly the problem. It's being treated differently that's the problem. It's an issue that goes beyond comics to real life situations, where an attractive female co-worker is treated differently than her male co-worker, or, from my own experiences, how a female gamer is treated playing Call of Duty compared to how a male player is treated.

Ok, and this means we can't have attractive art because...?

Sure, the poses emphasize features which are deemed particularly attractive culturally. A grown man with a bubble butt would actually be deemed less attractive. Women with large breasts are. To the point that women will actually undergo a medical procedure to look that way. Men with large breasts? Not so much.

You aren't helping. It is a sad, unfortunate, and quite frankly SICKENING "cultural" mindset that makes a woman feel that mutilating her breasts with artificial implants and plastic surgery to "be attractive" and pleasing to men is something is still a problem. The culture is wrong, and I won't apologize for taking a stand against it. So men feel a woman needs bigger breasts? Then men need to change their standards of beauty, not women surgically altering themselves to fit their deranged sexual fantasies.

So what you're saying is that unless everyone (women included) conforms to your own opinion of sexuality then they're deranged. Good to know and good luck with changing how we have literally evolved as a species to feel.

Sorry, large breasts, spankable ass, and everything else is going to be desirable. Just is. Guys are also getting muscle inserts and liposuction. Are you going to stop being extra attracted to men with chisled abs and a less than 6% body fat ratio?

Having ideal body types despite having human and flawed bodies is a human issue. We all deal with it and we all measure ourselves up against those deemed perfect. But you'll note that men don't go out demanding that people stop making men chiseled and muscly. Not like people go out and demand women be made less attractive.

 

[Lightknight]

The moment feminists begin to realize that the girl jogging down the street in short juicy boy shorts and sports bra is also a woman should be the moment they realize that some girls want to be sexy and that sexy isn't an evil attribute.

I'm gonna stop you right there, Lightknight, because while your point about the jogger is valid, it's misleading in this context. Spider-Woman is not a jogger. She is also not real. She did not choose to wear that outfit or to strike that pose. Milo Manara chose for her to strike that pose while wearing that outfit, and he chose those things in order to sell her to us with her ass being the primary selling point. You don't really get to use real female autonomy as justification for sexual objectification that no real, actually existing woman made a choice to participate in.

1. If she's not real, then who are you defending? If real women then I'll again point to the fact that sexy women exist. If fake women then I'll point out that not only do they have no rights because they're not real, but there are all kinds of depictions of women in media from ugly to beautiful to impossible. Picasso was not being unethical when he started using cubism and this guy isn't being unethical for drawing what looks like a female hero with a costume painted on rather than wearing an actual garment.

Though, I'll point out that there's nothing particularly unrealistic about this drawing. This isn't entirely unlike what a woman in skin tight apparel would look like climbing over the edge of a rooftop.

2. Why do you believe that your depiction of beauty is more worthy of depiction than say the jogger's version of beauty? Why do you get to decide what is appropriate and what isn't for an artist to depict?

Are you, perhaps, just imposing your own morality on other people's art?

Sorry, but attractive women have every bit as much of a right to be depicted as dumpy ugly or non-distinctive types. What's more is that readers want sexy so they're even more in the right to be depicted than something people don't want.

 

[Lupine]

The biggest problem is the pose... and the fact that clothing does NOT work that way, no matter how skin tight. It is almost like she isn't even wearing anything. Combine that with how she is posed, and... yeah... not good. Horrible art, really.

To be fair every Spider-Character in Marvel has clothes that do that. Spider-Woman wasn't singled out of the spider people pool and given a painted on costume. All of their costumes are painted on and it only makes sense for characters like Venom and Carnage which actually do have their costumes painted (or at least slithered on) everyone else though, not so much. But even if I find it, meh. I'm saying this to provide context, because like anything in art or in society, context is everything.

 

[Trishbot]

This is going to be quite lengthy, so apologies in advance. I'll try and stay as brief as possible.

Do you have citation to back [46% of comic readers are women] up? Having been to comic book stores during high-traffic business hours, I'm certainly able to provide personal experience that would laugh at the notion. But maybe you've got a legitimate study that would prove my personal experiences and the assumption of nearly everyone to be wrong. I'm willing to be taught if I'm wrong. So cite.

There have been several studies. Here's a small and recent sample:
http://comicsbeat.com/market-research-says-46-female-comic-fans/
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai.../just-how-many-women-read-comic-books/374736/
http://comicsbeat.com/demographics-comcis-readers-almost-45-women-now-and-how-publishers-stack-up/
http://www.techhive.com/article/2053313/good-news-dudes-ladies-read-comics-too.html
Female readership varies from title to title, genre to genre, of course, ("comics" as a genre is as specific as "movies").

You also need to demonstrate what qualifies as "comic readers". Are we talking the consumers of superhero readers or are we including manga which would be a different genre all together. Please keep in mind that in nearly all forms of media there are distinct differences in preferences of genre by gender. Movies, video games, and literature. I would be shocked if comics somehow side stepped the same thing for some reason.

They haven't. Men still dominate the readership of superhero comics (70%), while women are the overwhelming majority of manga buyers (60%). As someone who readers everything from Spider-man to Archie to Dragon Ball, I don't differentiate "comic readers". Comics are comics, just as I don't segment women as "movie watchers". If it's in print, has word bubbles and panels, it's a comic. If you wish to narrow the discussion to exclusively superhero comics then, yeah, the numbers make just as much sense. 30% of Marvel readers are female, and I'm going to bet that well over 70% of Marvel heroes on stands right now are male-driven.

You may misunderstand. I have no problem with the half-naked stud muffins. What I'm saying is that demanding they not be sexy would be like us demanding that romance novels not have the half naked stud muffins in them either. It just doesn't make sense when people want sexy.

PLENTY of romance novels don't have half naked stud muffins on the cover. Even 50 Shades of Gray neglects the beefcake. You're grouping "romance novels" with the specific type of novel - Burlesque Novels and Erotic Fiction. That has a very dedicated market, but even those sexy covers promise more than eroticism... they promise adventure, excitement, mystery, escapism... more than just hot guys.

As stated, if men had a feature that was easily exaggerate-able and legal to depict in regular comics (sorry no massive trouser snake for the lady viewers that are into that thing) then we would have those in spades.

Apart from that head-slapping double-standard, where women NEED to be "exaggerated" to be sensual but men aren't allowed to, body shape is far less important than body POSE. A simple pose can be the difference between sexy and not sexy. Men are very often NOT depicted in seductive poses, regardless of body shape or exaggerated features.

As is, toned and in shape with rugged or boyish features are basically all we have as male archetypes of beauty.

Then men need to give women more archetypes of beauty other than "buxom supermodel".

Women do have the sleek version but they also have the exaggerated bumps version too. It's just the way things are.

"Just the way things are" has always been one of the lamest excuses for not changing things for the better and improving life for others.

As you said, health is attractive to us. So wide hips, voluptuous breasts and butts, long beautiful legs, these are all also signs of health so we're naturally attracted to them.

I've seen female Olympians in the peak of physical health. Trust me, those insanely strong, fast, athletic women rarely have oversized breasts or big bubble butts. They're often fit, petite, even small (because boobs hitting you in the face is sort of a hindrance to being a good runner). Having a massive chest and butt doesn't indicate "health", just as seeing their ribs doesn't indicate they're in shape. "Healthy" for women is pretty much the same as men; active, fit, toned, muscle definition, good hygiene, etc. It would be ridiculous for me to say a man with a big butt and shaved legs is more healthy than one without.

Sure, but this is a non-mainstream cover. It's a rare piece that you actually have to seek out.

Comics in GENERAL are non-mainstream. You have to seek out comics to begin with at specialty stores. Very few local Walmarts or Targets carry racks and racks of comics. You need to know where to find them in the first place to even read them.

So criticizing Marvel for it existing is silly.

Something has to exist for it to be criticized.

If it was the regular cover then I'd understand that too. But honestly, why not have marvel superhero porn. It's completely their prerogative to do so and I bet they'd make money at it. Oh no, it's a sexy drawing, someone call the police! Have we really become such prudes that we can't handle artists drawing a picture that isn't even naked? Art should be criticized for it's merits, not criticized for existing at all. What kind of artistic criticisms do you have about it? Please remember that you've already acknowledge that male superheros are also regularly cast in sexy roles.

People do sell superhero porn (it's a thriving industry), so that argument can die. You, once again, are looking at the art entirely divorced from any and all context. There is NOTHING wrong with being sexy... but there is a problem when being sexy is the MAIN thing being offered, reducing a complex character with opinions, emotions, history, and female following to a simple sexy tart meant to titillate the boys. This isn't a "one time thing"; this is yet another straw on a pile of straws on a camel's back that has embarrassed and shamed the comic industry for DECADES as one of the most unfriendly mediums for women to read about.

Beyond that, sure, I'll openly criticize the cover's misunderstanding of how fabric works, the lack of pelvic bones and anatomical impossibilities of the character, the strange lack of context for the pose (she's trying to be sexy, but for who?), presenting a reader with no clear information about what the story or character is about in any meaningful way, which a good cover should do... etc.

Getting pissed off that other characters who happen to be female do too like its unequal treatment is just expressing ignorance that males are too. It would be unequal to shy away from female sexuality like it's bad. Hell, that'd be sexist.

Again, nothing wrong with sexuality. But women are present as MOSTLY sexy the MAJORITY of the time. Let me know when men are more frequently depicted as sexy than not and then you'll have an argument. It's about balance, not stamping it out.

But butts aren't generally seen as desirable male features unless they're toned. So the point is silly if it's just to show them stick their butts out because female butts are a desirable feature.

The point is NOT how big their butts are, but how they're PRESENTED. REGARDLESS of sex appeal, the Hawkeye Initiative points out how silly the POSES of the characters are. Why does a girl strike a sexy pose when falling out of a building or being beat up by ninjas? Her butt has nothing to do with why an artist draws her sexy in situations that absolutely don't call for it. THAT'S the point; it's silly PERIOD, sexy or not, male or female.

Are you saying that women don't want to look that way? Because I know a plastic surgeon in town that has a mansion to disprove your theory.

I'm saying women shouldn't want to alter their bodies. I would argue that, no, they don't want to cut themselves up and jab in implants out of a desire to be better... they do it earn male approval. Very, VERY few women I know get breast implants to feel sexier around their female friends. I mean, to go a step further and more harsh, women in the Middle East have to cover their faces, hide their bodies, wear hot, heavy clothing in burning temperatures, and be subservient to all the men. Are you saying they don't want to do that? Because thousands of insane men claim otherwise for them.

Look, muscle isn't just about bulk craziness. It can also be about tone. All those pictures you posted are our society's common attractive man and those are the default bodies we see our heroes having.

Yeah... the heroes have never typically been drawn with "normal" muscle definition. "Bulk craziness" defined most heroes for a good long while.

As I stated, males really don't have the exaggerated features as points of attraction. If we have larger features it's often seen as a detractor. Toned ass, toned/chisled muscles, these are where it's at for men. Women have breasts, butt, and legs. These are easily exaggerate-able and those being larger are often associated with attraction.

You keep bringing that up. WHY exaggerate for the women and not the men? Why do it in the first place? Is "sex appeal" the only way a braindead artist can make a heroine look attractive? Look at this:

Would you say Captain Marvel is not sexy or attractive, despite being drawn with more realistic, less exaggerated proportions, covered from the neck down and showing very little skin, in a pose that isn't "sexy" but rather powerful, aggressive, dynamic, and authoritative? Stuff like this is proof you can make and sell a heroine on more than just her body. She looks kickass; her attractiveness is secondary to that.

Twilight actually has both character types. Boyish and Rugged. In fact, they completely played off of this fact in that "Vampire name" vs "werewolf name" campaign that was everywhere. Sorry, I only saw the first one and have forgotten their names.

This is NOT "rugged":

That is full on boyish. All the hot male leads were "boyish".

THIS is ruggedly handsome:

Hugh Jackman, Russel Crowe, Gerard Butler, Nathan Fillion... even Chris Hemsworth and Chris Pratt have that ruggedly handsome look going for them. They're not hairless, baby-faced pretty boys... but they're still attractive.

Sure, the poses emphasize features which are deemed particularly attractive culturally.

Context is the important thing. A sexy girl in a bikini posing seductively for her boyfriend? Great. A sexy girl fighting crime in a bikini posing seductively in a fight for her life? Not so great. That's just pandering.

So what you're saying is that unless everyone (women included) conforms to your own opinion of sexuality then they're deranged. Good to know and good luck with changing how we have literally evolved as a species to feel.

I'm not asking for conformity; I'm asking for equality. There's a pretty big Grand Canyon-sized difference. If ladies get the ridiculous sexy treatment constantly, I only think it's fair men get the same treatment as often and as ridiculous.

The ONLY person in comics that seems to do this is Deadpool. As a joke.

Sorry, large breasts, spankable ass, and everything else is going to be desirable. Just is. Guys are also getting muscle inserts and liposuction. Are you going to stop being extra attracted to men with chisled abs and a less than 6% body fat ratio?

I certainly would be if I knew they were fake. Also, this may shock and surprise you, but I and many other human beings also find things like, say, wonderful personalities, kind spirits, great senses of humor, and other traits to be just as "sexy" as a six-pack. Narrowing "desirable" to JUST the physical is insanely shallow and, well, a disservice to the rest of that person, regardless of gender.

Having ideal body types despite having human and flawed bodies is a human issue. We all deal with it and we all measure ourselves up against those deemed perfect. But you'll note that men don't go out demanding that people stop making men chiseled and muscly.

Ugh.

You once again are confusing sexual fantasy with power fantasy. Chiseled and muscly men created by men as an embodiment of male power. Women rendered by men as male sexual fantasies.

Not like people go out and demand women be made less attractive.

I got nothing. Just... wow.

If a woman has a smaller chest, a normal-sized butt, non-child-bearing hips, and other features, she is "less attractive" than other women... as if "attractiveness" was measured solely by breast size.

Behold, unattractive women:

Look at these actress... with their horrible A and B-cup chests, their averagely-sized rears, their often lithe and athletic physiques, their non-exaggerated shapes... certainly, these women are MUCH less attractive than this:

I'm not arguing to make women "less attractive". I'm telling you "attractive women" covers far more than just breast size and flashing skin. I'd rather add to the narrow definition of "attractive", since beauty comes in far more than just one narrow shape and form.

 

[JimB]

If she's not real, then whom are you defending?

I am not defending anyone, except possibly in a sociological sense (that is, protecting random women from the behavior of men whose understanding of how to interact with women is shaped by having hyper-sexualized women sold to them as products, which is an iffy stance in the first place).

If real women then I'll again point to the fact that sexy women exist.

You can go ahead and point that out if you want, but please permit me to remind you that I have already said I believe such a point is irrelevant and misleading, and you have not said anything to explain to me why a real woman who makes a choice to go jogging for her own personal benefit is analogous to a fictional woman being drawn bent over to take it up the butt not for her own sake but for mine as a consumer.

Though, I'll point out that there's nothing particularly unrealistic about this drawing. This isn't entirely unlike what a woman in skin tight apparel would look like climbing over the edge of a rooftop.

Except that I'm pretty sure her neck cannot contort to such an angle as would support her head and her upper left arm is either drastically shorter than the right or just doesn't exist.

Why do you believe that your depiction of beauty is more worthy of depiction than say the jogger's version of beauty?

I do not understand what you are talking about. I didn't say anything about depictions of beauty.

Why do you get to decide what is appropriate and what isn't for an artist to depict?

Because I have standards, and I do not consider subjectivity or deliberate neutrality to be virtues; I consider them attempts to claim a moral high ground in not having enough conviction to form and stand by one's own opinion.

Are you, perhaps, just imposing your own morality on other people's art?

I don't know what "just" means in this instance, and I am not imposing anything on anyone, but otherwise, yes, absolutely I am applying my morality to what I perceive. I do not apologize for speaking up when I think something is wrong.

Sorry, but attractive women have every bit as much of a right to be depicted as dumpy ugly or non-distinctive types.

I never once said anything about what kind of two-dimensional shape has an inherent right to be drawn, and I have no idea where you got the idea that I think there are categories of vaguely female anatomy that are okay or not okay to be depicted on paper. Either you've confused me with someone else, or you're setting up strawmen.

What's more is that readers want sexy so they're even more in the right to be depicted than something people don't want.

I am not impressed by an appeal to populism. I do not base my aesthetics, my ethics, or my morality on some kind of group consensus, so telling me that a lot of people disagree with me doesn't change my mind; it just makes me think a lot of people are wrong.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

I'll just leave it here

Spoiler

The big problem with this cover is that there's other things going on in that picture, you see Daredevil's swinging along the bright cityscape to somewhere, it's a very action-y pose, you see his cane in his hands, you see practically everything else except his flat ass.
Spider Woman's cover pretty much only showcases her Grand Canyon of an ass that you could park a double decker in, and that's it.

 

[Lightknight]

I apologize for length as well. But thanks for all the pictures, makes your post far more interesting to read than mine.

This may not come across well. I know I purposely sounded short and snarky in my responses but I absolutely love having a real discussion on the subject with someone that knows their stuff. I appreciate the effort you put into this and even if I sound snarky below, I want you to know that I am not as firmly into the side I am defending as I may seem. I personally sympathize with you but I am responding more firmly in that camp for this discussion. I'm not playing devil's advocate. I believe most of the things I'm saying. But I'm being more hardline about it then I'd normally be. Please keep that in mind as I do respect you and what you're saying here even if I disagree.

There have been several studies. Here's a small and recent sample:
http://comicsbeat.com/market-research-says-46-female-comic-fans/

Facebook study. Not a random sample of the population. This would be like running a poll on the escapist and trying to pretend that we're a random sample of the US and UK populations.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai.../just-how-many-women-read-comic-books/374736/

Yay, another facebook study that can include anyone who references a superhero ever. Women are also disproportionately more facebook social so it isn't even a random sample of any population.

This ranges from 41%-47% which puts the previous one on the high side.

http://comicsbeat.com/demographics-comcis-readers-almost-45-women-now-and-how-publishers-stack-up/

Same facebook guy as the previous one.

http://www.techhive.com/article/2053313/good-news-dudes-ladies-read-comics-too.html

This is the most relevant article. Puts readership at 20% on comixology. That article is just to express an increase in readership which is fantastic.

The reason why I ridicule facebook results in gender studies is that women dominate nearly every social media site except linkedin. And not just in significant population numbers. Women also use facebook ads and surveys more than men in larger numbers. For example, say there's an ad. 53% of women will pursue that offer compared to 36% of men. That's a 68% higher liklihood for females compared to males (given a somewhat equal male/female ratio in the US population these numbers were taken from)

So that the studies are from a source that women has a SIGNIFICANT advantage in and still don't make up the larger number points to a larger disparity when it's more women on the site and more likely for a woman to respond by an even larger margin than the population difference.

I'm a big fan of studies. Really focused on statistical analysis in college and in my first marketing job.

In order for your study to be valid, you have to have a population group that is relevant to what you are trying to research (for example, if you are trying to find out what gamers think then it's fairly obvious that you'll need to define 'gamers' and consider that definition to be the criteria to be considered part of the population), you need to have enough respondents to extrapolate useable data (generally needs to be more than 30 to get a general bell curve, larger numbers increase credibility of results), and the sample of the overall population that you got responses from must be randomized (for example, if you want to find out how Americans feel about pot usage you wouldn't set up your survey shop at a Dave Matthews concert or in a Republican rally of some sort) and the actual questions you ask need to be relevant to the question being asked (for example, the facebook surveys just search for anyone who liked "Captain America" or anything related to comics which has an overlap in TV and Movies and so isn't directly correlated to comics specifically).

The facebook studies fail the setup criteria except randomization (which they may have failed in some other unknown way).

1. Sample size: Check, I think. I assume they surveyed more than 30 people.
2. Population Set matches desired population: Fail. Facebook's demographic does not match population demographics. The only population their numbers reflect would be facebook demographics if the rest of the study was even correctly done.
3. Population sample is random: Technically 'check' that it is randomized out of the population set specified. However,
since the population set specified is wrong then this is basically meaningless.
4. Questions should match the question you want answered: Big fail, including any liking of a super hero may have nothing to do with comics specifically or even an ongoing fandom. For example, my wife loved the Avengers. Thought it was great from start to finish and can't wait for the next one. Comics however? She doesn't enjoy them. Yet this study would have declared her a comic book reader.

They haven't. Men still dominate the readership of superhero comics (70%), while women are the overwhelming majority of manga buyers (60%). As someone who readers everything from Spider-man to Archie to Dragon Ball, I don't differentiate "comic readers". Comics are comics, just as I don't segment women as "movie watchers". If it's in print, has word bubbles and panels, it's a comic. If you wish to narrow the discussion to exclusively superhero comics then, yeah, the numbers make just as much sense. 30% of Marvel readers are female, and I'm going to bet that well over 70% of Marvel heroes on stands right now are male-driven.

Got any citations for these numbers? Or is it facebook again?

I've got numbers from DC in 2012 that was released with their 52 series who divided them into three groups:

1. Exclusively in-shop comic customers: 93% male, 7% female.
2. Online and in-shop comic customers: 77% male, 23% female.
3. Exclusively online comic customers: 93% male, 7% female.

That was from in-store surveys, the DC app, and the comixology site.

I can't for the life of me find any similar study from Marvel.

PLENTY of romance novels don't have half naked stud muffins on the cover. Even 50 Shades of Gray neglects the beefcake. You're grouping "romance novels" with the specific type of novel - Burlesque Novels and Erotic Fiction. That has a very dedicated market, but even those sexy covers promise more than eroticism... they promise adventure, excitement, mystery, escapism... more than just hot guys.

Plenty of comics don't have boobzilla. Yet many or most do.

Still, I've seen the romance section and I know that I'm far more likely to grab a book at random from the romance section that has said stud muffin fabio types (which, by the way, I do believe is schwarsenegger-esque). I mean, go ahead run any kind of search for them. Google, amazon, or just walk into the section in any library or book store.

Apart from that head-slapping double-standard, where women NEED to be "exaggerated" to be sensual but men aren't allowed to, body shape is far less important than body POSE. A simple pose can be the difference between sexy and not sexy. Men are very often NOT depicted in seductive poses, regardless of body shape or exaggerated features.

I disagree. Comic book characters are regularly posed to make them look attractive. Male and female.

Here you go, courtesy of my favorite artist of all time: http://www.alexrossart.com/galleries/spiderman_2/full/painted1.jpg

They aren't posed to focus on breasts and bubble butts because those aren't traditionally the desirable features of males. But toned butts make regular appearances along with those washboard abs you ladies are so keen on.

What people generally mean is that men aren't posed in exactly the same way as females. But we have different body types and general preferred assets. Just the way things are in a species with drastically different female/male attributes.

As is, toned and in shape with rugged or boyish features are basically all we have as male archetypes of beauty.

Then men need to give women more archetypes of beauty other than "buxom supermodel".

Give? It's a reflection of society. Breasts are attractive in society. You've got to do some reprogramming of the human brain brought on by all the years of evolution to undo that bit.

Even with the individuals you posted images of below, the argument could be made that they could look more attractive with larger breasts. All you're doing is showing that women aren't only attractive if they have them and not attractive if they don't.

Look, I'm not huge into boobs. They're nice and all but they're really secondary to the face for me. So I get what you're saying but if I could create a perfect body it would likely look very similar to the typical super heroine.

"Just the way things are" has always been one of the lamest excuses for not changing things for the better and improving life for others.

It's what society likes. Lame excuse or not, what are you going to do about the fact that men like plump breasts? All a "lame" excuse is, is just an excuse that we are powerless to do something about the situation. Hence the term "lame" being used there.

Yes, I am incapable of altering society's perception of beauty.

I've seen female Olympians in the peak of physical health. Trust me, those insanely strong, fast, athletic women rarely have oversized breasts or big bubble butts. They're often fit, petite, even small (because boobs hitting you in the face is sort of a hindrance to being a good runner). Having a massive chest and butt doesn't indicate "health", just as seeing their ribs doesn't indicate they're in shape. "Healthy" for women is pretty much the same as men; active, fit, toned, muscle definition, good hygiene, etc. It would be ridiculous for me to say a man with a big butt and shaved legs is more healthy than one without.

Look up a couple "10 hottest female athletes" lists. You'll notice that these do typically have larger breasts than the ones you're speaking of as well as attractive legs and butts that aren't absent. I would provide a list for you but I'm hesitant to look at the links while at work even if on my break. I just typed in the words "female olympian" and the first two hits were "hottest" lists. That should say something a bit hurtful about our society.

As a species who largely evolved in a time where food was scarce, having voluptuous body parts meant more health because those were food reserves for times of scarcity or say, when a fetus takes calories away or when a nursing child needs supper. Men had to be capable of hunting and defense. A little bit of flesh is healthy but by an large they wanted them to be in shape.

It isn't hard to work back on that. FYI, a lot of female athletes don't look particularly healthy either. Not to say a humpless individual can't be attractive, but these are feminine features that men are particularly attracted to.

Comics in GENERAL are non-mainstream. You have to seek out comics to begin with at specialty stores. Very few local Walmarts or Targets carry racks and racks of comics. You need to know where to find them in the first place to even read them.

Ok... so a rarity amongst rarities? Doesn't that just double down on my point rather than creating a counterpoint? I basically just said, "It's rare" and then you basically said, "No, it's even rarer than that!" when my point is that it's a limited edition cover that isn't even going to be what readers of the series will typically see?

And again, this is a spider-hero. Have you actually ever paid attention to posing of spiderman even? He's all crotch led swinging poses.

I mean, please honestly consider this. How do you think an image of this would go over if it were spidergirl?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQlE56glxNg7KXacmgY1Gb5qfJ_jRTRqgrhO253LNlwP-W65TO3

I mean, with the way he swings legs open I wouldn't be surprised if his nuts have taken some serious damage if not for his spidey sense.

Another thing, had they posed spiderman exactly like he did spider girl then this stuff wouldn't have happened. Not unless they altered spiderman to give him a cute lady butt and hip like they did her.

Something has to exist for it to be criticized.

On its merits, not for existing.

People do sell superhero porn (it's a thriving industry), so that argument can die.

Marvel does? You said "People" but that doesn't sound like Marvel.

You, once again, are looking at the art entirely divorced from any and all context. There is NOTHING wrong with being sexy... but there is a problem when being sexy is the MAIN thing being offered, reducing a complex character with opinions, emotions, history, and female following to a simple sexy tart meant to titillate the boys. This isn't a "one time thing"; this is yet another straw on a pile of straws on a camel's back that has embarrassed and shamed the comic industry for DECADES as one of the most unfriendly mediums for women to read about.

Oh? how is that a problem? Why is that unethical?

Also, why is a rare cover art depiction somehow reducing everything within the pages?

Beyond that, sure, I'll openly criticize the cover's misunderstanding of how fabric works, the lack of pelvic bones and anatomical impossibilities of the character

Lack of a pelvis? I can clearly see the divot most thin women have between the illiac crests of the pelvis around the sacrum in the lower back. This guy got fabric wrong, sure, but the anatomy is spot on. This guy almost went full Velasquez on his attention to detail. Like a photo image of someone body painted to look like spiderwoman.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a picture of a very real model for this who was nude.

presenting a reader with no clear information about what the story or character is about in any meaningful way, which a good cover should do... etc.

Do all comic covers give readers clear information about the story...

What about the two captain marvel covers you posted below? They don't give any context either.

Again, nothing wrong with sexuality. But women are present as MOSTLY sexy the MAJORITY of the time. Let me know when men are more frequently depicted as sexy than not and then you'll have an argument. It's about balance, not stamping it out.

Ok, so who gets to decide which images are allowed through the quota and which ones get cut off? Also, who gets to decide what is an acceptable quota.

Should we have a weekly ceremony where we burn works that exceed it? Maybe the government should go through works with a black magic marker and cover up the naughty bits?

The point is NOT how big their butts are, but how they're PRESENTED. REGARDLESS of sex appeal, the Hawkeye Initiative points out how silly the POSES of the characters are. Why does a girl strike a sexy pose when falling out of a building or being beat up by ninjas? Her butt has nothing to do with why an artist draws her sexy in situations that absolutely don't call for it. THAT'S the point; it's silly PERIOD, sexy or not, male or female.

Again, all the characters in comics are posing all the time. Features are getting accentuated in both sexes. It's just not the ass with males so the Hawkeye initiative isn't actually proving anything.

Once again, if males had an easily exaggerate-able feature it would be presented prominently.

I'm saying women shouldn't want to alter their bodies. I would argue that, no, they don't want to cut themselves up and jab in implants out of a desire to be better... they do it earn male approval. Very, VERY few women I know get breast implants to feel sexier around their female friends. I mean, to go a step further and more harsh, women in the Middle East have to cover their faces, hide their bodies, wear hot, heavy clothing in burning temperatures, and be subservient to all the men. Are you saying they don't want to do that? Because thousands of insane men claim otherwise for them.

Why would anyone want to look sexy around our same-sex friends unless we're gay? (nothing wrong with being gay, just questioning your point)

Women do place an incredible amount of focus on looking cute around their female friends though. Women can also be incredibly cruel to their peers if they don't.

Look, muscle isn't just about bulk craziness. It can also be about tone. All those pictures you posted are our society's common attractive man and those are the default bodies we see our heroes having.

Yeah... the heroes have never typically been drawn with "normal" muscle definition. "Bulk craziness" defined most heroes for a good long while.[/quote] Ok... so there goes any demands about "realistic proportion".

As I stated, males really don't have the exaggerated features as points of attraction. If we have larger features it's often seen as a detractor. Toned ass, toned/chisled muscles, these are where it's at for men. Women have breasts, butt, and legs. These are easily exaggerate-able and those being larger are often associated with attraction.

You keep bringing that up. WHY exaggerate for the women and not the men? Why do it in the first place?

*sigh* they DO exaggerate the men. You JUST pointed one such example out. It's just that attractive males are generally the ones that are toned with chisled tight muscles. Not the bulk hulking types like the Captain America example you linked.

You see this all the time when guys wearing clothes show clear outlines of abs and musculature. Spiderman is a good example of this too. That is exaggeration.

Is "sex appeal" the only way a braindead artist can make a heroine look attractive? Look at this:

Would you say Captain Marvel is not sexy or attractive, despite being drawn with more realistic, less exaggerated proportions, covered from the neck down and showing very little skin, in a pose that isn't "sexy" but rather powerful, aggressive, dynamic, and authoritative? Stuff like this is proof you can make and sell a heroine on more than just her body. She looks kickass; her attractiveness is secondary to that.

I think the first one is a bit silly with the black on black background. But the second one is pretty nice. However, she has what I'd personally consider perfectly sized breasts for her size and emphasized curvature of her ass and leg.

Still posing. Still everything you'd say against the other stuff.

Context is the important thing. A sexy girl in a bikini posing seductively for her boyfriend? Great. A sexy girl fighting crime in a bikini posing seductively in a fight for her life? Not so great. That's just pandering.

How about a ripped dude in skin-tight spandex? happens all the time.

Spandex has got to be the worst option for crime fighting and yet they ALL seem to wear it.

I'm not asking for conformity; I'm asking for equality. There's a pretty big Grand Canyon-sized difference. If ladies get the ridiculous sexy treatment constantly, I only think it's fair men get the same treatment as often and as ridiculous.

Ok, so what features do you propose we emphasize on men to make you happy? Looks like it's still muscle definition from your first response with Thor and such. So... what else?

The ONLY person in comics that seems to do this is Deadpool. As a joke.

That's right, because posing in that manner is not considered attractive for a MALE TO DO.

I certainly would be if I knew they were fake.

As am I regarding fake breasts. Still doesn't make you less attracted to what they're trying to emulate.

Also, this may shock and surprise you, but I and many other human beings also find things like, say, wonderful personalities, kind spirits, great senses of humor, and other traits to be just as "sexy" as a six-pack. Narrowing "desirable" to JUST the physical is insanely shallow and, well, a disservice to the rest of that person, regardless of gender.

I place very little focus on physical appearances. That I am married to a beautiful woman is just a happy coincidence, I assure you.

But we are talking about physical appearances here, are we not. Do you want to start discussing personalities now? I resent that you would assume I have ever thought such a shallow thing that looks are the only thing that matter.

Also, when you can design a perfect being, why not have both looks and personality?

You once again are confusing sexual fantasy with power fantasy. Chiseled and muscly men created by men as an embodiment of male power. Women rendered by men as male sexual fantasies.

Oh, so you don't like chiseled washboard abs. I'll bring that to the attention of the artists at the next males oppressing women meeting. Apparently all female porn and romance novel images are a lie.

Not like people go out and demand women be made less attractive.

I got nothing. Just... wow.

Typo, meant "men" there of course. I don't go around demanding that mister 8-pack be downgraded to 6-pack just because that's not really possible.

If a woman has a smaller chest, a normal-sized butt, non-child-bearing hips, and other features, she is "less attractive" than other women... as if "attractiveness" was measured solely by breast size.

Behold, unattractive women:

You know what would make them prettier? Child bearing hips and larger breasts. Not abnormal sizes, just average ones. Again, it's not like made up characters are victims to their genes. They can be made what they want to be made.