Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

Basically, society ENCOURAGES women to stay physically out of shape while doing their best to somehow still manage to stay thin in spite of this. A woman whom has been active her whole life doesn't usually have a problem meeting the military's standards.

I disagree with how they are going about trying to fix this problem, mind you.

This is so very painfully true and thank you for saying this because it needs to be said again and again until women are encouraged to be more than a skinnyfat twig with a plastic rack. The "feminine" image pushed by society is either a waif that is probably suffering from numerous mineral deficiencies and has brittle bones or the equally obnoxious borderline obese "curvy" figure. Both are inactive.

All humans should be physically active to some extent and women should be encouraged to be fit and athletic. They shouldn't be encouraged to starve themselves.

Seaward wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Basically, society ENCOURAGES women to stay physically out of shape while doing their best to somehow still manage to stay thin in spite of this. A woman whom has been active her whole life doesn't usually have a problem meeting the military's standards.

The Marines seem to keep recruiting inactive women, I guess.

Have you ever even been around female Marines or any Marines at all? You don't need to be a physical stud to complete Boot Camp (it'll help though), you don't need to be particularly fit to do a lot of the jobs, and in all honesty all the most strenuous job requires is muscle endurance. I have a 6'2" 170lbs dripping wet twig of friend that someone managed to get through B oot Camp, SOI, and is now an 0311. There are some hard chargers out there, but that doesn't mean every man or woman in the Corps is in particularly good shape.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Have you ever even been around female Marines or any Marines at all? You don't need to be a physical stud to complete Boot Camp (it'll help though), you don't need to be particularly fit to do a lot of the jobs, and in all honesty all the most strenuous job requires is muscle endurance. I have a 6'2" 170lbs dripping wet twig of friend that someone managed to get through B oot Camp, SOI, and is now an 0311. There are some hard chargers out there, but that doesn't mean every man or woman in the Corps is in particularly good shape.

Oh, one or two. They run around the flight deck a lot.

They've been trying for a couple years now to ditch the flexed arm hang option for women in favor of pull-ups. A minimum of three, to be precise. They've had to push back implementation twice because it's still well over 50% of all female Marines failing when tried. It's a serious problem.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
fake beard and fake body hair

You keep focusing on hair. It is disingenuous (and irritating) given that you thereby ignore every other secondary sexual characteristic. It boils down to an argument that Superman is not sexualized because he doesn't have a beard. Also, you keep ignoring the relationship between sexual attraction and secondary sexual characteristics. Attractiveness is not necessarily sexual and "sexiness" is obscured by individual preference. All the pictures you linked earlier of men you find to be erotic demonstrate only your taste in erotica rather than any meaningful standard for sexualization. As I already mentioned, sexualized is not a synonym for erotic or attractive or sexy. It's interesting to me that you dredge up an APA report on sexualization of children without connecting the dots between it and the discussion here. First, secondary sexual characteristics indicate biological adulthood. That is the objective basis for the inappropriateness of sexualization of children. Second, my definition covers the same ground -- objectification and dehumanization as distinct from personal value and sexiness.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
you have given a ridiculous definition that no-one else uses, but you also shifted on me the burden of proof to show that your definition is not the right one

You have yet to demonstrate that my definition is ridiculous or that no one else uses it. For my part, I never claimed that anyone else every used it. I just claim that it is (a) reasonable and (b) useful. By reasonable, I mean that it does not hinge on personal taste. By useful, I mean that it clarifies the difference between sexiness (which is not inherently problematic) and dehumanization (which is always problematic).

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
an image of a character pretty much imply the existence of a character

I get what you mean but that superficial logic skirts the point. A character is more than a body; characters also have personality, history, and perspective. A pinup can convey this fuller sense of character -- which is why I have no idea why you brought up piunups in the first place or how you got the idea that I wanted to ban them. What I actually said was:

 Manchu wrote:
The problem is when female characters exist solely or primarily for the sake of being sexualized.

Appearing in a pinup does not necessarily mean the character exists solely or primarily for the sake of being sexualized, even if the character does not exist outside of the pinup. This is where the term 'pinup' is being abused because of its broad meaning. If what you are really talking about is pornography then just say so. As for pornography, yes I think it is certainly problematic but I don't think it should be banned.

It's not going to happen because the average American male struggles to even do a single pullup. I've seen some women knock them out, but they've always been Crossfit gals or "gym rats". Until female athleticism is celebrated military standards for them are forced to be low.

Most of these "fun" arguments of men with more muscle mass and women with more pain tolerance are geared toward the "extreme" ends of the spectrum.

The bunch of us "normal" types there would be little to differentiate so getting hung up in these discussions are a no-win situation.

I like strong, smart women.
Funny: I like that in my male friends as well.

What problem do I have with how women are presented in games?

When their sex somehow makes them "special" in that game.

 Talizvar wrote:
Most of these "fun" arguments of men with more muscle mass and women with more pain tolerance are geared toward the "extreme" ends of the spectrum.

Testosterone helps build muscle. Men have much more testosterone than women. An average male is capable of building more muscle than an average woman. How is this even debatable?

 Talizvar wrote:
Most of these "fun" arguments of men with more muscle mass and women with more pain tolerance are geared toward the "extreme" ends of the spectrum.

The bunch of us "normal" types there would be little to differentiate so getting hung up in these discussions are a no-win situation.

I like strong, smart women.
Funny: I like that in my male friends as well.

What problem do I have with how women are presented in games?

When their sex somehow makes them "special" in that game.

Agreed. IT should just be like. Yeah she's a girl so what.

 trexmeyer wrote:
It's not going to happen because the average American male struggles to even do a single pullup. I've seen some women knock them out, but they've always been Crossfit gals or "gym rats". Until female athleticism is celebrated military standards for them are forced to be low.

If you say so.

Incidentally, I suspect some 0372s would argue about the most strenuous jobs requiring mere muscle endurance, but what do I know.

 Talizvar wrote:
What problem do I have with how women are presented in games?

When their sex somehow makes them "special" in that game.

What do you mean by "special"?

 Seaward wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
It's not going to happen because the average American male struggles to even do a single pullup. I've seen some women knock them out, but they've always been Crossfit gals or "gym rats". Until female athleticism is celebrated military standards for them are forced to be low.

If you say so.

Incidentally, I suspect some 0372s would argue about the most strenuous jobs requiring mere muscle endurance, but what do I know.

Modern combat is much more focused on muscle endurance and reflexes than it is only absolute strength and explosiveness. Yeah, you still need the latter, but it is secondary.

Broadly speaking the capabilities of a lot of video game characters don't track at all to real human ability. Unless we're talking about whatever small subset of games aim to be a realistic simulation of real people in real situations, I just don't get how any of this "Male vs Female" strength/pain tolerance/snow-pee writing ability/capacity to menstruate has any relevance.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Modern combat is much more focused on muscle endurance and reflexes than it is only absolute strength and explosiveness. Yeah, you still need the latter, but it is secondary.

I found it to be much more focused on effective communication and fine motor skills, with an annoying amount of math. I suppose it depends on what you're doing.

I don't know why the Marines are struggling to get women to manage three pull-ups. As you said, the majority of males in America would have trouble meeting the requirements, yet the Marines don't lack for male recruits who can meet and exceed minimums. The same is not true on the female side of the coin. I find that worth noting, at the very least.

 Seaward wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
Modern combat is much more focused on muscle endurance and reflexes than it is only absolute strength and explosiveness. Yeah, you still need the latter, but it is secondary.

I found it to be much more focused on effective communication and fine motor skills, with an annoying amount of math. I suppose it depends on what you're doing.

I don't know why the Marines are struggling to get women to manage three pull-ups. As you said, the majority of males in America would have trouble meeting the requirements, yet the Marines don't lack for male recruits who can meet and exceed minimums. The same is not true on the female side of the coin. I find that worth noting, at the very least.

You know I was referring to the physical side of it Seaward.

 Chongara wrote:
Broadly speaking the capabilities of a lot of video game characters don't track at all to real human ability. Unless we're talking about whatever small subset of games aim to be a realistic simulation of real people in real situations, I just don't get how any of this "Male vs Female" strength/pain tolerance/snow-pee writing ability/capacity to menstruate has any relevance.

So you're suggesting that this;




Isn't possible in reality and acting as though fantasy must adhere to the limitations of real humans is silly? Get outta here

 Manchu wrote:
Also, you keep ignoring the relationship between sexual attraction and secondary sexual characteristics.

Sexual attraction. That is the thing. Superman is not designed to emphasize his sexual attraction. Those examples I gave are.

 Manchu wrote:
All the pictures you linked earlier of men you find to be erotic demonstrate only your taste in erotica

No. I am not interested in males. I am able, though, to recognize a picture that was made to emphasize sexual attractiveness, and one that was made to emphasize physical strength like your Superman picture.

 Manchu wrote:
As I already mentioned, sexualized is not a synonym for erotic or attractive or sexy.

Your own personal definition of sexualization is not relevant here.

 Manchu wrote:
You have yet to demonstrate that my definition is ridiculous or that no one else uses it.

No, I do not. Burden's on you.

 Manchu wrote:
For my part, I never claimed that anyone else every used it. I just claim that it is (a) reasonable and (b) useful.

Using a different definition than anyone else of a common word is not useful. Or reasonable.

 Manchu wrote:
By reasonable, I mean that it does not hinge on personal taste.

It is not a question of taste, it is a question of judgment. I never said whether those pictures were tasteful or not, or whether I personally liked them. Some of them might be very tasteful, other not at all, all that matter is whether or not emphasizing sexual attractiveness is the aim. This may be a little more subjective than determining whether secondary sexual attributes was the aim, but only slightly so, and it has the great advantage of not presenting this as sexualized:

even though there is some very big secondary sexual attribute on this picture.

 Manchu wrote:
By useful, I mean that it clarifies the difference between sexiness (which is not inherently problematic) and dehumanization (which is always problematic).

Just to be clear, you are telling me that the picture of Superman you posted was dehumanizing? This is really what you meant?

 Manchu wrote:
Appearing in a pinup does not necessarily mean the character exists solely or primarily for the sake of being sexualized, even if the character does not exist outside of the pinup. This is where the term 'pinup' is being abused because of its broad meaning. If what you are really talking about is pornography then just say so. As for pornography, yes I think it is certainly problematic but I don't think it should be banned.

So, what about the picture I posted. Was it pornography? Or has the character any other purpose that makes her sexualization secondary?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Broadly speaking the capabilities of a lot of video game characters don't track at all to real human ability. Unless we're talking about whatever small subset of games aim to be a realistic simulation of real people in real situations, I just don't get how any of this "Male vs Female" strength/pain tolerance/snow-pee writing ability/capacity to menstruate has any relevance.

So you're suggesting that this;

Spoiler:

Isn't possible in reality and acting as though fantasy must adhere to the limitations of real humans is silly? Get outta here

Exactly. It's just a nonsense side track. I mean would

This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RypphRK14t8#t=126

This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RypphRK14t8#t=126

or This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0raU4dHUYJw#t=26

suddenly cross some kind of line they haven't already if the characters in question were women?

 trexmeyer wrote:
It's not going to happen because the average American male struggles to even do a single pullup.

When I started doing push-up, I started being able to do at least 10 in a row, and very quickly grew to be able to make 20 in a row. I struggle to imagine the average American male is so much weaker than me. Or has obesity reached such level there?
(I grew up to being able to do about 45 in a row iirc, and then my wrists started aching so I stopped, and never really went back to it. But climbing should do for the exercise, I hope.)
[edit]Oh, I mixed push-ups and pull-ups! I can barely do 5 pullups.[/edit]

I think complaining about pullup's is ultimately kind of silly. Pullups are really really hard. Even when I could do back to back sets of 10 pushups all the way up to 250 if I wanted to, I couldn't do that many pullups. The minimum pullups for the military is what, 3 to 5?

When we were doing the presidential fitness test, the girls and the small kids were pushing out upwards of five to ten pull ups no sweat, while the jocks could barely do two or three. At the end of the day I've always felt the pullup is a deceptive test, especially since it's easier to do large numbers of pullups with less muscle mass.

 Manchu wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
What problem do I have with how women are presented in games?
When their sex somehow makes them "special" in that game.

What do you mean by "special"?

If "Oh no, Biff got captured!!" gets treated any different than "Oh no, Jane got captured!!".
The prince is killed and they kidnap the princess.

What is considered appropriate adult sexuality in our culture has its basis in the development of secondary sexual characteristics. For those who are obsessed with facial hair, you must be aware that beards do play a role in sexually attracting women to men generally speaking. So do other male secondary sexual characteristics, such as pronounced muscle mass. Emphasizing masculine sexual characteristics is not only meant to titillate straight women, however. It is also meant to idealize masculinity for male consumption -- and this is certainly the bigger market when it comes to video games and comic books.

For example, the famous table-turning parody of the Avengers movie poster actually fails to make a coherent point. The commentary suggests Black Widow is singled out for sexualization because of her unique pose. In reality, every one of the Avengers is sexualized in that poster. The male Avengers are posed differently because of underlying male secondary sexual characteristics: square jaws, broad shoulders, buldging arms and thighs. Black Widow's pose emphasizes her breasts, waist, and rear end. Black Widow's pose is unique because she is the only woman, not because she is the only character whose sexual aspects are being emphasized.

Why do people have such a tough time realizing this? I think the answer is extremely complex but I would start by suggesting that latent homophobia makes straight men hesitant to admit that they themselves are the primary consumers of images of men wearing skin tight clothing over bulging muscles as a matter of sex appeal. There is also a related notion that only women can be sexually objectified/exploited in a meaningful way (that is, sexual objectification of men is a non-issue because our culture is patriarchal).

Moving back to the original point from pages ago, there is no zero sum game as between characterization and sexualization. All of the Avengers, including Black Widow, are portrayed as having history, personality, and viewpoint that is not merely contingent upon their sexiness. A meaningful feminist critique of media is not about opposing women being conventionally sexy (as has been suggested in many forms ITT) but rather about pointing out when women (and men) are reduced to little more than a sexy image to be consumed.

 Manchu wrote:
So do other male secondary sexual characteristics, such as pronounced muscle mass.

Not just “pronounced muscle mass”. The hulk is not a sex symbol. Actually, leaner builds are much more popular. It is certainly not “the more the better”, and your Superman would be more attractive to most people with less muscle.

 Manchu wrote:
The male Avengers are posed differently because of underlying male secondary sexual characteristics: square jaws, broad shoulders, buldging arms and thighs.

So, why do not Iron Man get some nipple-window on his armor, like power girl get a boob window?

 Manchu wrote:
Black Widow's pose is unique because she is the only woman, not because she is the only character whose sexual aspects are being emphasized.

I disagree with you. I am pretty sure the rear end of men is just any less sexual than the rear end of women, and the reason only Black Window's rear end is emphasized is because she is the only one where there is a conscious effort to make her sexy.
The parody poster is a parody, so yeah, the pose do not make the other avenger actually sexy, but just look at that B&B disney character I posted. Would you really say that his rear end is not emphasized by his pose to make him more sexy? Or do you think it makes him look feminine?

I think you are on the right track by contrasting masculine sexiness with feminine sexiness. I would also add that the target audience is important. The Avengers poster plays up the masculine sexiness of the male Avengers and the feminine sexiness of Black Widow as targeted at a straight male audience.

 Manchu wrote:
I think you are on the right track by contrasting masculine sexiness with feminine sexiness. I would also add that the target audience is important. The Avengers poster plays up the masculine sexiness of the male Avengers and the feminine sexiness of Black Widow as targeted at a straight male audience.

Funnily enough a lot of girls looked up at black widow as a true heroine.

Even if she is in a revealing pose.

There is nothing wrong with girls looking up to a sexy woman as a role model so long as being sexy is not the only or primarily ideal aspect of the role model.

 Melissia wrote:


Basically, society ENCOURAGES women to stay physically out of shape while doing their best to somehow still manage to stay thin in spite of this. A woman whom has been active her whole life doesn't usually have a problem meeting the military's standards.

I disagree with how they are going about trying to fix this problem, mind you.

Sound logic. Certainly when I was a teenager we were always out causing havoc, climbing trees, and running away from the authorities at great speed.

My missus was never in the military but she began training with me when we started dating, 5 years later she can crack 12 proper pull-ups and run three miles in about 22 minutes. Stunned men constantly comment on it at the gym, I'm aware they probably mainly do it so they can try to get her phone number, but almost once a week she gets home and says "Oh another guy came over and slapped me 5 today and said "DAMN ARE YOU IN THE RANGERS?!"

 Manchu wrote:
I think you are on the right track by contrasting masculine sexiness with feminine sexiness.

I never said they were the same.

 Manchu wrote:
The Avengers poster plays up the masculine sexiness of the male Avengers and the feminine sexiness of Black Widow as targeted at a straight male audience.

You know, I still have a lot of problem with the idea the entirely covered up in metal that let us only vaguely guess at the shape of his body Iron Man is sexualized. Or Hulk, for that matter. I mean, there is a reason this parody was made:

Iron Man's armor is stylized muscle mass. The depiction of him and the Hulk is primarily targeted at straight men not gay men or straight women. The "He-Hulk" parody makes that point. The former is a kind of sex appeal for the target to emulate. The latter is a kind of sex appeal for the target to desire.

As is often said of James Bond, "women want him and men want to be him." The Avengers poster is aimed at straight men. They are not meant to want to be Black Widow. The usual argument goes, what about straight women looking at the poster? If they are meant to want to be Black Widow and Black Widow is depicted as desirable by straight men then are we sending the signal that straight women should want to be desirable by straight men?

YES FFS that is exactly the message.

And that is exactly why straight men want to be like James Bond -- so straight ladies will want to be with them.

 Manchu wrote:
Iron Man's armor is stylized muscle mass.

I disagree. Just look at the torso:

 Manchu wrote:
The depiction of him and the Hulk is primarily targeted at straight men not gay men or straight women.

So, how is it sexualized/sexy/in any way related to sex? He sure seems focused on strength, and only strength to me.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Just look at the torso

The metal pecs or the metal abs?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
He sure seems focused on strength, and only strength to me.

Are you saying strength is not a sexually desirable trait in men?

Also I added more to the post above. Reposting here since we are on a new page:

 Manchu wrote:
Iron Man's armor is stylized muscle mass. The depiction of him and the Hulk is primarily targeted at straight men not gay men or straight women. The "He-Hulk" parody makes that point. The former is a kind of sex appeal for the target to emulate. The latter is a kind of sex appeal for the target to desire.

As is often said of James Bond, "women want him and men want to be him." The Avengers poster is aimed at straight men. They are not meant to want to be Black Widow. The usual argument goes, what about straight women looking at the poster? If they are meant to want to be Black Widow and Black Widow is depicted as desirable by straight men then are we sending the signal that straight women should want to be desirable by straight men?

YES FFS that is exactly the message.

And that is exactly why straight men want to be like James Bond -- so straight ladies will want to be with them.

So, how is it sexualized/sexy/in any way related to sex? He sure seems focused on strength, and only strength to me.

Because society (and this is practically universal among humans) sexualizes male power. Strength is sex. It's at times hard to note sexualization of males by males because it's indirect. It's not about a big shlong or a tight butt so much as it is about what men think will get them women. The answer to that question is strength. Physical, mental, emotional, etc.