So …. until displaying camel toes becomes the norm, the real sexism problem seems to be more the difference in the poses…. Like stated in that post : http://theslowbullet.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/muscle-madness/
the equivalent for men of the usual depiction of women would be for the heroes to all display poses like Tom of Finland’s models …..
- http://queermeup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Tom_of_Finland_09.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_JfzG4mI1KQc/S5o9l6jIqnI/AAAAAAAAC54/zOV6BAcULaA/s400/Tom_of_Finland_15D.jpgjpg
But then one could object …. : the way for men to appear sexy is to have muscles and look masculine (square jaws, large shoulders, hairy chest) -, the way for women to look sexy is to adopt sexy poses …
Not so much the reverse, like men offering their butt and women going into body building excesses … It is not a comics norm but a social one …
So in this way comics treats fairly both genders in presenting them equally and in their own ways as objects of desires …
Now is this that we are looking for in reading comics ..?? We could probably do without it … There is already enough gratuitous stimulation and frustration without wanting to add more …

You have not only written an article that is insightful, coherent and informative, but witty and completely enjoyable to read on subjects I’m very much interested in!

To be quite honest I think you are sad people for talking about this. Men may look at other peoples packages but thats only because of our natural instincts and that we all want to be the alpha male. Next time post something more tasteful Chris….

Overdone, unrealistic, ridiculous sexualization of women? Fine, and anyone who complains about it should be shot.

Overdone, unrealistic, ridiculous sexualization of men? EVIL EVIL EVIL HORRIBLE (froth at mouth)

Don wrote:
In retrospect, I think you’re right, Chris, for taking me to task on the yaoi comment, since evidence does indicate that genre of manga has a strong female fanbase as well.

As well? Are you fucking kidding me? I mean, I know that male yaoi-fans exist but…

but look, there’s nothing wrong with that instinctual feeling of squeamishness at a naturalistic, unexaggerated, not especially sexualized depiction of cock. Sometimes a guy doesn’t want the fact that other men have penises too just…shoved in his face, you know?

… Wow, just wow. So, I should feel perturbed about other’s women vaginas?

Damn, I think some people are really repressed about sexuality in general.

And here I was happy for the few times that that happens.

Chris, I love you.

I think I love you, man. No, really. I haven’t laughed this hard or nodded this vehemently in reaction to a comics-blog post in…ever, really.

It’s so nice to see a comic cover with a dude who actually looks like a DUDE. The fact that the art itself is completely fantastic, that the pose is great, that the superhero in question looks like he could be a real (if impressively ripped) person? Makes me want to go out and BUY THIS COMIC. And isn’t that what covers are supposed to do?

Bravo, Alex Ross. And you too, Chris.

Love and kisses (no, seriously)

Kate

When you turn it around and imagine how many women have been practically laughed out of the room for bitching about boob-waist-and-ass sizes, it puts you in a bind: laugh through a megaphone into the faces of those who’re screaming their heads off, or beat them to death with said megaphone… THEN laugh at them.

Frankly, I’m all for the oversexualization of males in comics– and I’m all for this gendertyped ‘outrage’ that seems to be overtaking the comic bloggers. Whether or not the intent is centralized around the issue of objectification, and rather, has the ‘straight guy phobia’ of porno associated with it (more on that soon!), this makes me smile. Trying to wrap said homophobia up IN the oversexualization package (lawl package) is cracking me up to no end, largely because of the HUUUUGE doublestandard it’s presenting, as well as the blatant fear of stating the real case.

Ever wonder why guys in breeder-porno are ugly?

Straight guys themselves fear getting turned on by good-looking models.

No joke.

Note: Having a noticeable package in spandex is realistic. Having DDD boobs with a two-inch waist is not.

Personally, if comic book fans can’t handle spandex with what might be a cock underneath, it shouldn’t get these twisted up disgusting women.

(Personally, I love cheesecake, both of the male and female versions and I don’t really mind the sexual objectifiction of women in comics, but when men can’t handle what may be sexualized males, it just becomes ridiculous.)

That’s… all I have to say really.

I read this and laughed my ass off.

The straight fanboys love their handsome, muscular, male superheroes as long as they’re neutered or under-endowed because in that one way, they can be superior to their hero. But hey, give him a normal package (and yeah, that is just an average package), and they feel threatened, “creepy”.

I don’t see anything inappropriate in having sexualized characters in mainstream comics, it makes them more realistic. It is the over-sexualized, hyper-pneumatic depictions that are wrong.

I did.
It was one of his regular models.
Who was not erect.
Nor packing any serious baseball bat.
Nor did Ross set out to create controversy or paint a penis. He just painted reality, then costumed and chromed it.

Paraphrasing, but from our conversation, the very heterosexual Ross finds this whole “afraid of the whang” thing ludicrous.

Darn, that was the one that I wanted to see most.
:P

And that’s really the heart of the matter, you interpret the picture differently and you’re unwilling to step into the shoes of someone who is convinced there’s a boner in the picture.

Like that guy from the CSBG comment’s sections you quote. _At worst_ he’s simply wrong about the picture and perhaps through several links you can somehow asscribe a certain homophobia to his comments along the lines of “so afraid of cock he sees a boner where none is”, but (a) that’s deep into pop-psychological bullshit territory, ignoring all the other reasons (e.g. spring) why that person might see a boner and (b) it hinges on the correctness of “no boner”. Which apparently reasonable people disagree on. Perhaps the commenter would even come to share your view after having seen you examples.
But that might have required given them the benefit of the doubt even if they don’t see the Ross cover the “right” way, your way.

——————-
Concerning the artsy stuff:
- well yes, the some of the criticism was that Ross inserted a fuck-pose where none was called for. Per your follow-up that’s done with.
- re: boner = bad. You know, if you’re reduced to arguing that people insufficiently clearly point out they’re talking about a concrete instance in a superhero book and your argument relies on interpreting a local statement as their universal opinion … you’re talking nonsense. You’re effectively suggesting they’d have a problem with Ross drawing (homosexual) porn for a porn mag. Your evidence does not back up that suggestion in the least.

- “the distinction between an idealised physique … of which a 6 pack of abs and a big cock are part, and a physique exaggerated for a specifically sexual effect” A good point I readily admit to having given insufficient thought to. So, thanks.
Still, you’re miles off the point I was talking about. I was criticising the false dichotomy between “neutered” and “so packed some people think it’s a boner”.
Anyway, on your point: your distinction is mostly one of artistic intent and for most examples outside Tom of Finland you’ll find it’s a bit of both and artists rarely bother to reveal their motives nor can be presumed to be knowledgeable and honest about them. In the middle, we interpret, using various clues one way of the other. If you can’t come to that interpretation table admitting the other side has a point or a legitimate, non-evil (/homophobic) reason to see what they see, that discussion can’t happen either.

Meanwhile, some of you may remember this:

http://odditycollector.livejournal.com/97166.html