Previous Post > Yes, we all know that artistic depictions of men and women in comics suffer from a dramatic double-standard, but this "flipside" exercise underscores it better than a lot of arguments could. > > vito_excalibur: IM IN UR STUDI0 DRAWIN UR D00DZ > > ratcreature posted an excerpt from Wizard's How to Draw: Heroic Anatomy, in response to brown_betty's request for illustrations of how bizarre illustrations of women can get in comics. > > And yeah, I thought we might all be able to see it clearer if we looked at it a little sideways [...] > > > > Many, many more examples to be found by clicking the link ...

Heh... these are pretty good, and definitely cute. It reminds me of a few things:

Years and years ago, there was a controversy at the Avengers Message Board when a female poster complained about the banner... one of those images where someone painted a costume on a photo of some naked woman reclining in the sheets. The argument was that it made the poster uncomfortable, and that many guys would be uncomfortable having to face down a slutty male porn picture at the top of the board.

The pro-slutty woman banner fans shot down the people who said they'd submit male banners, on the grounds that:

a) There was no evidence that the female image, tawdry as it was, was from actual porn... porn would be rejected.
b) It wasn't out of character for this heroine to be depicted in such a sultry scene, while it would be for Cap or whomever. (A whole other can of worms, really)

So I made a banner repainting Michaelangelo's "Dying Slave" sculpture to be Starfox peeling up his shirt.
Lisa passed it on to 'Dox, who thought it was funny, but it somehow never made the banner rotation...


Another incident would be a discussion I had with someone over the "gayness" of the "Superman Returns" costume. This person stated that all opposition to the costume was born over homophobic reaction to the openly gay director. I suggested that, while I was sure that was indeed driving quite a bit of it, observed objectively the costume *was* a more "gay" interpretation of the classic outfit. My reasoning was this:

Male and female sexuality is traditionally expressed in different ways, especially in poses and clothing that emphasizes differences in body types. When you reverse these traditions, you project the opposite gender onto the subject and people's brains react accordingly. A man in a sultry, "feminine" pose tells the male viewer's brain that the figure is trying to entice him... hence, it would be gay. Generally, people who are uncomfortable with that don't react well to the switch...

Getting back to Superman, in the heroic male, one stresses the stability of horizontals... especially the broadness of the chest... something the classic "S" shield does perfectly. In Superman Returns, this shield was made smaller. Additionally, they lowered his belt, stretching out his torso and shifting emphasis from the chest down to the abdomen... an area more stressed for women's sexuality than men's. (Whenever comedies want to dress a hetero guy in a "gay" outfit, high on the fashion list would be belly shirts of some kind.)

Case in point... Compare these three images:

Christopher Reeve Supes:


Superman Returns Supes:


Crazily overdone sexual Supergirl statue:


Now... which of those costumes invite you to let your attention drift lower... lower... lower...


Not that there's anything wrong with any of this, mind you... I absolutely love Michaelangelo's work, but there's no doubt it's super-gay. He didn't hesitate to put the male form into those very poses that the comic-art post mocks. And really, quite often that's art... you project and emphasize the thing that attracts you into your own work. As such, that disparity between the poses will remain until the market is made up of enough creators and enough of an audience to really demand men in sensuous poses.