You're viewing part of a thread.
I believe you did misunderstand the post.
The post is commenting that both men and women characters in comics are drawn for men. The male characters are aimed at the broad average male power fantasy, not a broad average sexualization that would appeal to women (the way the female characters are drawn for the broad average appeal of men).
When the woman in this comic strip draws Batman in a way that is sexually attractive to her (which is a similar broad strokes "catch as many women as possible" approach comics already use for men), the man in the comic became uncomfortable seeing it. The point is that if they drew male characters in comics with the same approach that they draw female characters, then generally men would feel as uncomfortable by it as women generally feel now.
the man in the comic became uncomfortable seeing it
I don't understand this point. The reason they're uncomfortable with it is because they're drawn in a sexualized manner? But even if all else is true, men in comics are already drawn in a way that many men think is attractive.
At least that's how I understand the point of the "power fantasy". Or do they mean literal physical strength with the "power fantasy"? Because the sexualization of men is definitely not limited to muscles.
Assuming the power fantasy is not just about physical strength, but also (or only) about extreme attractiveness (as perceived by men):
That is an idea that could be true. Are there statistics about how close the typical male hypersexualization is to women's interests compared to how close the typical female hypersexualization is to men's interests?
(as perceived by men)
I think this is the point. It's that both men and women are drawn in a way that attempts to appeal to men and less so what appeals to women (this is what men think ideal-woman looks like. This is what men think ideal-man looks like). This causes side-effects, galore.
Honestly dude you lost me when you started forcing a "ph" in the word fantasy over and over. Can't take this conversation seriously anymore. I've explained it for you, but alas I cannot understand it for you.
I'm not a native english speaker. I'm sorry if my spelling makes my comments difficult to read.
I think I mostly understood the point by now.
(I still don't get why the man would be uncomfortable with the alternative hypersexualization, since he already perceives the initial depiction as hypersexualized, but that doesn't seem to be central to the point anyways.)
Ah, no worries, I thought it was some sort of weird mind games being played so I stopped trusting the sincerity of your posts - my apologies.
The tricky part you seem to be hung up on is that the guy thinks that the male characters are hypersexualized for women, but in reality they are more drawn to be the power fantasy of men - the ideal / fantasy version of themselves essentially. So when the woman draws an "actually hypersexualized" male character, it makes the man uncomfortable. Thus he feels, briefly, what the woman feels reading most comics most of the time.
You did understand their point, they just didn't argue it well.
But the person you replied to said not all men like the comic book "hourglass" figure
You're implying that the average women isn't attracted to a Jason Mamoa or Chris Pratt -type gymbod. Although I know not every woman is attracted to big arms and abs, it seems that most do. Hell, even straight guys can see that these dudes are hot.
