Buffed af
Buffed af
You're viewing a single thread.
They don't put men like this in movies for women.
Oh yeah, remember that box office failure that no one talked about? Magic Mike? I hope Channing Tatum's ego has recovered.
Part of that franchise's marketing is that there aren't many movies like it.
How do you know that? What makes you say that? Does it even matter why they're put into movies?
As far as I understand it the image posted does not claim that these bodies are put into movies for women. Personally I would argue that unrealistic bodies are put there for both genders, but perhaps more so for the opposite sex. However, looking at the posted image neutrally and without reading anything into it that's not there, to the main idea behind the image is to point out the fact that not not only women but also men are depicted unrealistically more often than not. Or at the very least statistically above average.
Some women might lust over this, but that's not why they are put there. They are the male power fantasy and are added for the benefit of the guys that watch it.
There's a reason most straight women find Loki more attractive than Thor and I've seen guys completely blindsided by that because they see everything through the male gaze.
You're not right. What's the proof behind most women finding loki more attractive? Typical terminally online take, so predictable.
As a woman who has mostly straight friends.... I don't know a single other woman that finds Hemsworth more attractive than Hiddleston. And most women I know would also say Andy Samberg is very attractive. I don't know many men who would admit that Samberg is attractive.
Almost universally bodies in media are designed to appeal to men first and women second. There are exceptions, yes, but they are just exceptions.
I don’t know many men who would admit that Samberg is attractive
Those men haven't watched Popstar.
Tell me you've never talked to a woman without telling me you've never talked to a woman...
Ok, so I'm confused about what's being implied here. Is it that media makers don't care about making things sexually appealing to straight women? If there's profit in it, why wouldn't they?
Seems to me that women in general tend to base less of their attraction on visual or physical cues than men do. But what I don't understand is why there's an air of moral superiority around the ways that women judge attractiveness and a condemnation of the way that men judge attractiveness. Non-physical traits might be a better basis for a relationship, but we're not talking about a relationship. We're talking about fictional media.
If women responded to sex appeal in the same way that men do, I see no reason why media makers wouldn't include it. In fact, I would argue in media targeted primarily at women, they do tend to portray men with both physical and non-physical traits that appeal to women. But the fact that superhero physiques might be included mainly to appeal to men in no way counters the argument that it can lead to body-image issues.
Yet they all still drool over them 🤔
Sometimes (the freak lobster men like top right aren't what most women are into lol), but Hollywood doesn't give a shit about what women want. This is what men want. It's all power fantasy.
Nah?
Well maybe.
Usually nah.
Unless?
Nah. They gotta have cute puppy dog eyes at some point. Gotta be more than a husk. Or a himbo. Himbos are good too.
What is the point? Of course a good looking man is good looking. Why wouldn't I find his body attractive?
You missed the whole point of the post then lmao