Societal Expectations Men vs Women: Sex, Violence, Roles, et

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

This is a continuation from a discussion on KMC.

I'm just posting it here as the quote function is just much more sound and hell I like posting here anyways.

-_-;; I don't think it has much to do with the 'attractiveness' of the complainer. I know a lot of people don't like it.

Well the women complaining about Hooters and "sexual objectification" aren't usually really hot unless they were trying to sell records or had a political agenda. Women who are attractive know that being attractive and getting male attention is good for them. Women who fail at this are the ones who want to restrict it. Outside of that I've seen some beta "male feminists" doing it but their goal is usually just getting laid, but in a different manner because they usually don't know how to socialize well so they figure "if I seem like a good guy girls will like me" that doesn't work though.

I'm no fan of 'sex is bad' stuff, but how it's handled is important. Superhero comics having heroines constantly pose their boobs and butts regardless of context is uggh to me. Female characters being treated just as sex objects is bad. On the flip side, active characters engaging in sex in positive ways (like Empowered, or Sunstone), is not only good, but way more attractive than the problem stuff.

It's all about context.

Not really realistic though. Sex to me is just sex, it could be handled in a "pure" or "dirty" way as long as it's well written. I like realism. My problem is when a show is bad and they try to cover it up with excessive gore, sex, toilet humor, or whatever more than the sex itself. I wouldn't turn down quality based on something having "fanservice", and let's face it damn near everything does. Men like eye candy and do see women as sex objects to one extent or another. That's just reality. Women see men as objects to get things from too, or status objects. It's hardwired. Men like characters who are hot, but if the character is bad they won't like them or keep reading them so I trust their intelligence more than that.

Though there's a difference between sexualization and idealization. Many muscular guys aren't really aimed for the female audience, they're aimed for male readers to go, 'yea, I wanna be strong like him!'.

Most superheroes are conventionally attractive, but the number who can be said to be sexualized in the art is lower (Nightwing at DC being an example).

Because men are reading the comics. Of course they don't look at them sexually, but the men are still far more attractive and badass than they are. Gay men (who are a minority) sure think they're hot, and females did like the male characters in Young Justice for instance. Why do you think Twilight does well? Do you think it would do well if it were bald, fat, middle aged men?

What about Justin Beiber? Same thing.

Men are more visual, but there is still plenty of manservice. Cyclops isn't ugly, Spider-Man isn't, Clark isn't, Bruce isn't, Wolverine was but he still somehow gets girls. They just aren't. Men of course look at the badass part, but I'm sure they also want to be strong, tough, and chiseled like them too.

In terms of lack of variety in anime, that's known as generic attractiveness, due to the art style.

Also idealization is a part of it. Look at shows aimed at girls. How many fat/ugly female protagonists do you see? Kim Possible, while watched at many, was aimed at girls too. Why aren't Kim and Shego fat and ugly. Look at magazines aimed at teen girls, they're not ugly. The female pop stars aren't ugly.

Most people in movies, comics, and games are attractive because 1)sex sells and 2) people want to see people they wish to be like, not fat hideous monsters. There are exceptions in things like comedians (humor) and rap (tough guy) but outside of that, not really.

[JACK-2]

I don't get it, what exactly is realistic about superheroes anyway? Most characters are very attractive and ideal physically. How many average looking superheroes do you see not to mention ugly? Fiction is entertainment plain and simple. So, titillation comes with the package.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 8, 2015 2:37:20 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I don't get it, what exactly is realistic about superheroes anyway? Most characters are very attractive and ideal physically. How many average looking superheroes do you see not to mention ugly? Fiction is entertainment plain and simple. So, titillation comes with the package.

That's not just in superheroes. People in fiction (comics, movies, games) tend to be attractive. Sex sells and it's also wish fulfillment.

Guys see Wolverine and go "I wish I could be a ripped badass like him."

Girls see Kim Possible and go "I wish I was as pretty and could do anything like her." I think it's her prettiness that girls would like more though.

[zerosd]

Feb 8, 2015 2:29:51 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

This is a continuation from a discussion on KMC.

I'm just posting it here as the quote function is just much more sound and hell I like posting here anyways.

-_-;; I don't think it has much to do with the 'attractiveness' of the complainer. I know a lot of people don't like it.

Well the women complaining about Hooters and "sexual objectification" aren't usually really hot unless they were trying to sell records or had a political agenda. Women who are attractive know that being attractive and getting male attention is good for them. Women who fail at this are the ones who want to restrict it. Outside of that I've seen some beta "male feminists" doing it but their goal is usually just getting laid, but in a different manner because they usually don't know how to socialize well so they figure "if I seem like a good guy girls will like me" that doesn't work though.

Ah, being attractive is situationally useful. Other times? It's annoying as heck. You see, for a lot of guys, there's no off switch. They see an attractive female, they basically think it's a show for-them. If it's at work? Well, it's very hard to work with that guy. Or heck, even other women- you work for a good position, people look at you and say, 'she got there because she's hot' (or... less polite alternatives).

A lot of guys complain not because their, ugh, 'beta' (seriously, what a lousy term, not even wolves work that way!) male feminists, but because they recognize that a lot of their fellow guys are, well, basically jerks about it.


Not actively sexualizing someone just because they look attractive isn't a way to get laid, it's applying the baseline everyone should get. (And anyone who thinks they should get laid just for being nice, rather than actually finding out what the other person is interested in and having attractive qualities to them, is a dumbass).

Not really realistic though. Sex to me is just sex, it could be handled in a "pure" or "dirty" way as long as it's well written. I like realism. My problem is when a show is bad and they try to cover it up with excessive gore, sex, toilet humor, or whatever more than the sex itself. I wouldn't turn down quality based on something having "fanservice", and let's face it damn near everything does. Men like eye candy and do see women as sex objects to one extent or another. That's just reality. Women see men as objects to get things from too, or status objects. It's hardwired. Men like characters who are hot, but if the character is bad they won't like them or keep reading them so I trust their intelligence more than that.

It's not nearly as hardwired as some like to think. I mean, sure, people are going to find the other sex attractive, which is not the same as treated 'em like sex objects. As you say, you like realism, and objectification often gets in the way of that. Who actually poses so people can see their boom and butt? And you also see shallow characterizations that are there because the writer clearly just thought, 'hey, I made her hot and draping herself over guys, I don't need to spend much effort on it.'

Now, do you occasionally see this with guys characters too? Yes, but not nearly as often, not in mainstream stuff.

That's one of the problems. The male gaze is basically the 'default'. It'd be one thing if it was 'male gaze for male-sexy stuff, female gaze for female sexy-stuff, a combination of both or neutral for the main stuff.' A heck of a lot of, say, Hollywood and television, simply makes the assumption that the audience is male and that the camera should lovingly hover over female butts and breasts, while for guys it should just focus on their faces and skim over the rest.

It's the kind of thing that's so common you don't conscious notice most of the time, but once you start noticing this stuff, it becomes hard to miss.

Because men are reading the comics.

Chicken and the egg. The practice helps keeps women out of comics.

Of course they don't look at them sexually, but the men are still far more attractive and badass than they are. Gay men (who are a minority) sure think they're hot, and females did like the male characters in Injustice for instance.

Gay men prefer a bit less... well, I guess 'male gaze' isn't right to use here, but 'hetero male gaze'.

Here, this comic illustrates a difference.

And Here is Scott Summers in a costume that Emma Frost wore for an entire comic run. Not just for a hot night, but as a regular day-to-day thing.

The Hawkeye Initiative puts male heroes in the poses female heroes are often 'casually striking' to illustrate how odd it is.

Being attractive and being sexualized aren't exactly the same thing. Plenty of women find Batman sexy of course, but he's very rarely drawn in a sexualized pose. On the flip side, a lot of artists try and put their heroines poses sexually as often as possible.


And heck, with video games, you get This situation all. the freaking. time.

Why do you think Twilight does well? Do you think it would do well if it were bald, fat, middle aged men?

Hah, no, and in romance stuff I do expect all the leads to be ridiculously hot.

I do, however, expect non-romance stuff to have a bit less 'sexuality over practicality' in female characters (which doesn't necessarily mean ugly, just different clothing choices and such)... well, unless it's also done with the male characters, but that almost never happens.

The times it does happen tend to be pretty entertaining ^^ As long as it's equal, and one approach doesn't drown out the others so much.

Most people in movies, comics, and games are attractive because 1)sex sells and 2) people want to see people they wish to be like, not fat hideous monsters. There are exceptions in things like comedians (humor) and rap (tough guy) but outside of that, not really.

Weird thing? Sex doesn't sell. Like, if you put sex in an ad, it doesn't boost sales of a product, it can actually distract people from remembering what the product is.

And how many movies have you heard, "People just watched it to see (actor) naked"? Unless it's a porno, long term movie trends indicate, probably not.


It's like, sure, if something is actually sold as sex, then it sells, but just sprinkling sex around does not.


Making a sexual product is fine, but a casual sprinkling of sexualization everywhere does not.


A ton of comic book artists make all their female characters flashing cleavage all the time, have inflated chests, etc., and there's no real sign it works.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 8, 2015 3:50:12 GMT -5 zerosd said:

Ah, being attractive is situationally useful. Other times? It's annoying as heck. You see, for a lot of guys, there's no off switch. They see an attractive female, they basically think it's a show for-them. If it's at work? Well, it's very hard to work with that guy. Or heck, even other women- you work for a good position, people look at you and say, 'she got there because she's hot' (or... less polite alternatives).

Being attractive brings tremendous benefits vs not being attractive, especially for women. The minor downsides don't beat the very many upsides that women get when men find them very desirable. Women who are hot get the most desirable men, they get things paid for, they don't have to really do anything but look good. Men are still expected to accomplish something and can very rarely skate off of looks, but women can. That's because a man's attraction to a woman is almost entirely based off of looks, the rest isn't attractive if the woman isn't.

By the way more attractive people earn more on average than their less attractive counterparts. Losers and ugly people will always be envious, because they wish *they* were attractive and successful. That's why all of this complaining about attractive people all over the media is done mainly by the losers in the gene pool; they want to weed out competition. Women who are hot have no reason to complain about cashing in on their primary asset.

Feb 8, 2015 3:50:12 GMT -5 zerosd said:

A lot of guys complain not because their, ugh, 'beta' (seriously, what a lousy term, not even wolves work that way!) male feminists, but because they recognize that a lot of their fellow guys are, well, basically jerks about it.

There are alpha wolves, and humans aren't that far out of the jungle as they'd like to think.

There's a reason women don't go for men who worship them on a pedestal and are "nice guys". Jerks, rich guys, hot guys, and bad boys are the ones who get the girls. Maybe they should change their mating strategy, and you're dreaming if you don't think betas want to get laid. Those "male friends" you have would be all too willing, but they're your friends because you don't view them in that manner.  Look at these losers on comic book sites who worship and kiss up to every female member (or supposed female) without even knowing what they look like.  Look at these fools on twitter buying these female models or porn girls gifts on amazon even though they'll never meet them.

I don't see guys being jerks about it. I see women being domineering and trying to censor and remove anything that men find attractive because it takes attention from them. Who has the most to gain from this? Ugly women. There's a reason women complain about men liking Hooters, porn, prostitution, or anything else. They don't want the competition, or else why care?

If I made backgrounds with fat ugly women all over them women wouldn't complain about it, they wouldn't care because there's no threat. Bottom line.

Feb 8, 2015 3:50:12 GMT -5 zerosd said:

Not actively sexualizing someone just because they look attractive isn't a way to get laid, it's applying the baseline everyone should get. (And anyone who thinks they should get laid just for being nice, rather than actually finding out what the other person is interested in and having attractive qualities to them, is a dumbass).

Are women who like men who are hot bad boys and ignore beta nice guys dumb asses?

Men see attractive women and they think about sex; that's just it. Nothing you can do about it. It's just the way men are hardwired.

Feb 8, 2015 3:50:12 GMT -5 zerosd said:

It's not nearly as hardwired as some like to think. I mean, sure, people are going to find the other sex attractive, which is not the same as treated 'em like sex objects. As you say, you like realism, and objectification often gets in the way of that. Who actually poses so people can see their boom and butt? And you also see shallow characterizations that are there because the writer clearly just thought, 'hey, I made her hot and draping herself over guys, I don't need to spend much effort on it.'
Now, do you occasionally see this with guys characters too? Yes, but not nearly as often, not in mainstream stuff.

Realism should be there but there is an aspect of fantasy and wish fulfillment on both ends. Women like Twilight because it hits their sexual cues and plays into their fantasy of fixing some hot bad boy. Men like looking at hot chicks because it's a fantasy for them. But I still want the stories to be good.

The difference is you don't hear men whining about women liking Twilight, women whine about these things because they can't compete with what's in there.

Men being put in silly poses and making pouty faces would be seen as a joke and wouldn't sell that well, just like ugly "you go girl" women being put in comics who are "educated and opinionated". If you aren't attractive being an "educated, opinionated career girl" isn't going to really help you. Women can't raise their sexual value that way the way men can. Women have to rely on their youth and looks and they only have a limited window.  Due to the way sexual selection works your typical woman is going to have more short term options than your typical man, hence the betas.

Shirtless bad boys who have a dark past are much more "female porn" then simply having them pose with kissyfaces, just because they're different doesn't mean male preference is bad and female preference is ok.
Why are men seen as monetary objects? Why are they used for violence fantasies? Why are men the overwhelming recipient of violence in movies and tv shows? Why aren't we equal in what men get to do and say to women in these instances? Let's equalize men hitting women as well while we're at it.

Feb 8, 2015 3:50:12 GMT -5 zerosd said:

That's one of the problems. The male gaze is basically the 'default'. It'd be one thing if it was 'male gaze for male-sexy stuff, female gaze for female sexy-stuff, a combination of both or neutral for the main stuff.' A heck of a lot of, say, Hollywood and television, simply makes the assumption that the audience is male and that the camera should lovingly hover over female butts and breasts, while for guys it should just focus on their faces and skim over the rest.

It's the kind of thing that's so common you don't conscious notice most of the time, but once you start noticing this stuff, it becomes hard to miss.
Chicken and the egg. The practice helps keeps women out of comics.

The "male gaze" is the default for comics and games because most of the viewers and players are male, but there are plenty of shirtless men, hot guys, and everything else there. You also seem to be forgetting about societal expectations. Why is it when a man loses his pants it's seen as comedy and when a woman does it, it's seen as sexual? I can't change how people choose to see things.

Female aimed stuff like romance novels have hot buff guys all over them, plus the whole "man dominates me and ravishes me" that women like or "he's a bad boy" that women like. It's all over.
It doesn't just focus on male faces. They focus on men's toned bodies and stomachs and abs as well. It's all over the place.

Feb 8, 2015 3:50:12 GMT -5 zerosd said:

Gay men prefer a bit less... well, I guess 'male gaze' isn't right to use here, but 'hetero male gaze'.

I'm talking about how the men look.

Feb 8, 2015 3:50:12 GMT -5 zerosd said:

Here, this comic illustrates a difference.

And Here is Scott Summers in a costume that Emma Frost wore for an entire comic run. Not just for a hot night, but as a regular day-to-day thing.

The Hawkeye Initiative puts male heroes in the poses female heroes are often 'casually striking' to illustrate how odd it is.

Being attractive and being sexualized aren't exactly the same thing. Plenty of women find Batman sexy of course, but he's very rarely drawn in a sexualized pose. On the flip side, a lot of artists try and put their heroines poses sexually as often as possible.


And heck, with video games, you get This situation all. the freaking. time.

Those don't work for several reasons.

1. What about men in romance novels? They're big and buff.
]
Most women don't look at the cartoony men that she drew in that example. That said in different cultures you do have admiration of the "long hair effeminate pretty boy" type that you see in manga like Inuyasha with his brother Sesshomaru. Women drool over them. It's all fantasy. Men being super ripped and women having pencil thin torsos with huge boobs and a sweet ass. Do you think men necessarily like the stick thin fashion models they see? No. Some men have different preferences too, but they cater to the major audience, young white males in the teen to late twenty demographic.

2. Nobody wants to see men in women's clothes, just like we don't want to see butch looking women who are chubby wearing combat boots.

3. You keep saying sexualized. Men aren't going to be wearing women's clothes and doing poses, those would be seen as silly. Men are still sexualized in a different way. The hot bad boy that women can't get enough of. It's seen time and time again. Just because the titillation is slightly different doesn't mean there's none for women. Why are Disney princes handsome? Did you know Aladdin was made more attractive for female audiences? Young Justice has a large female base (one such member even posts here), she finds the guys hot. The difference is men don't care.

Christian Bale in American Psycho:


Did you know that all the women on the set watched him do that shower scene? Do you hear men complaining about it? No.
Look at Saiki from Kof. A pretty boy in a cast full of pretty boys and he has his ass at the screen.



Tons of it. More male flesh than female flesh, it's just not seen as sexual. A man in boxer shorts is not seen sexual like a woman in a bikini. That's cultural. Can't change how people choose to see things. Hell some cultures don't want women baring *any* skin, but women would just whine and say they should be sexually liberated.

Feb 8, 2015 3:50:12 GMT -5 zerosd said:

Hah, no, and in romance stuff I do expect all the leads to be ridiculously hot.

Why is it ok? Because it's aimed at women? Men can't like looking at hot women but women get to look at hot bad boys that turn them on? Women are even worse in some ways because fangirls are all about "he's so hot" or "he's so cute", whereas men who are fanboys tend to like the character, their background, or a particular product.  Even if they like the hot female characters.   If they hate the story the hot women won't save it.  Might as well watch porn and skip that route.

What about wrestling? Women are big fans of:
Buff Bagwell: 

Randy Orton: 

Batista:

The Rock:

etc. They're all big buff men. Why in a "sports entertainment" program? You have Divas as well who wrestle, but they can get by just on looks whereas a male "hot" character wouldn't get far unless he also had skill. He'd be seen as a joke. Men have to have skills. Women can just look hot. It's a good thing, unless the women aren't hot. People really don't want to see chicks do things that guys can do better unless they're hot.

Feb 8, 2015 3:50:12 GMT -5 zerosd said:

I do, however, expect non-romance stuff to have a bit less 'sexuality over practicality' in female characters (which doesn't necessarily mean ugly, just different clothing choices and such)... well, unless it's also done with the male characters, but that almost never happens.

The times it does happen tend to be pretty entertaining ^^ As long as it's equal, and one approach doesn't drown out the others so much.

That stuff doesn't sell well even amongst women. Magazines catered towards girls still have attractive women on the cover. Shows have attractive people. I mean attractive people are *all over* entertainment.
What about boy bands?



Do you think that would sell if they were old bald fat guys?

What about Justin Timberlake? What about Justin Beiber? What about Usher?



Would that video work if the guy was ugly and fat?

Sex sells. We don't want to see ugly people.

Feb 8, 2015 3:50:12 GMT -5 zerosd said:

Sex doesn't sell. Like, if you put sex in an ad, it doesn't boost sales of a product, it can actually distract people from remembering what the product is.

And how many movies have you heard, "People just watched it to see (actor) naked"? Unless it's a porno, long term movie trends indicate, probably not.

It's like, sure, if something is actually sold as sex, then it sells, but just sprinkling sex around does not.

Making a sexual product is fine, but a casual sprinkling of sexualization everywhere does not.

A ton of comic book artists make all their female characters flashing cleavage all the time, have inflated chests, etc., and there's no real sign it works.

Oh yes it does. Many guys do "watch for the boobs", and there's still a stigma attached to it. It doesn't have to be pornographic nudity , but attractive people are going to sell more than fat ugly people.
If some work is bad and they use excessive violence, language, sex, shock content, to cover it up, then it's bad. But it's not bad because of sex. I mean that's why exploitation films suck. The movie is bad and they add "shocking" scenes to cover it up and it doesn't work. Something can be good and have sex, violence, or whatever and it doesn't affect it.

I wouldn't miss out on a series or game because the "females were hot and had big boobs", I would if it sucked though. Something with ugly people doesn't mean quality either and people are competing for sales and we want eye candy in everything from people to cars and video game graphics.

Then again women will always complain about something. They didn't like Fat Princess being fat because *that* was "bad for girls". Smh.

[Great Dark Hero]

Being attractive/toned is something that individuals usually like to see or even aspire to when it comes to fictional productions. The only time I will ever really tolerate an intentionally ugly female character (as well as other dynamics too) if they are reasonably written well into their series (as if to say, whatever happens... it better make sense). You can't have a female character be ugly... "just" to be ugly or to just to appeal to some minority group demographics (like hyper feminist groups, other uglier women with poor dispositions, etc). On KOFXIII, there are plenty of reasons why I play Elisabeth and her looks are definitely part of those reasons.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 27, 2015 3:57:23 GMT -5 Great Dark Hero said:

Being attractive/toned is something that individuals usually like to see or even aspire to when it comes to fictional productions. The only time I will ever really tolerate an intentionally ugly female character (as well as other dynamics too) if they are reasonably written well into their series (as if to say, whatever happens... it better make sense). You can't have a female character be ugly... "just" to be ugly or to just to appeal to some minority group demographics (like hyper feminist groups, other uglier women with poor dispositions, etc). On KOFXIII, there are plenty of reasons why I play Elisabeth and her looks are definitely part of those reasons.

The bottom line is that ugly people just aren't as marketable. For this poster to say that sex doesn't sell, she had to be living under a rock and the double standards were just mind boggling. She seemed at least somewhat intelligent, I don't know why people are brainwashed by this religion.