>>65239721 >I'd appreciate it more if they drew characters I actually found attractive
They are deliberately making the characters as unattractive as possible which is the reason I find the Hawkeye initiative petty and mean spirited.
Female characters in comics are sexualized, they are drawn in ways designed to make them look attractive and sexy. The Hawkeye initiative is not making male characters look sexy, they are drawing male characters in embarrassing feminine poses and then dishonestly pretending that this is equivalent to the originals.
If they were honest they would draw male characters in a way women find sexy to show men how it feels to be sexualized, however, doing this would show men what a minor issue it is so the SJW artists pretend that sexualization and embarrassment are the same.
>>65239700 >Women who don't even read comics trying to punish men for liking sexy women and trying to force images of sexualized and submissive men to try to make male readers more effeminite and submissive
There is a war on male sexuality. SJWs won't rest until all men are castrated ladyboys to afraid to court women because it's "sexual harassment"
I mean, just look at how they started making Loki "sexy" a little bit ago to appeal to the Twilight teeny boppers, and have desexualized Batgirl and made her look like a little boy just to take away what little pleasure her fans may have gotten from her.
Psylocke's whole chicken drumstick pose wasn't particularly sexy either - that's half the point, all those weird poses that are justified "for fanservice" aren't being fapped to, they're just bad art justified by insulting the male readership.
It'd be nice if DC and Marvel swept their houses of all the consistently bad artists they continue to enable.
>>65240327 >SJWs won't rest until all men are castrated ladyboys to afraid to court women because it's "sexual harassment"
Jesus christ, this. They've made it so that the only way to even sleep with a girl these days is to grovel before them and become a brainwashed beta feminist drone, because it's the only way to gain their approval. They're fucking going against the nature that's existed for 1000s of years.
>>65240518 Maybe you should grow up and realize that there's no reason to sleep with a girl. You're not suddenly going to become cool and successful just because you found a vagina that will have you. It's not suddenly going to make your life less shit. It's not going to make you all that much happier.
>>65239700 The Hawkeye Initiative doesn't work because 9/10 they dishonestly represent the character by putting him in ridiculous bondage gear or femanizing the costumes as a cheat to get their point across.
If the pose was as ridiculous as they claim, then they wouldn't need to do that. Putting Hawkeye or Hulk or any other male character in a similar pose would be enough to get their point across.
>>65240394 >Psylocke's drumstick pose Honestly I question what's badly placed fanservice and what's mediocre artists going for dynamic posing. I can get Tigra slinking down a tree being an obvious appeal to sexuality or 90% of everything drawn by Benes and Cho. But I have a hard time believing someone said "that's gonna look so hot" when Psylocke was in that weird pose. It's just you take a hot chick in a skimpy outfit and make her do stuff like this and of course everyone will think you've got some weird fetish. >>65240663 I support this, quality sexiness for everyone.
>>65240996 That is because wearing revealing clothing isn't what makes a man attractive. Being strong, rich, decisive, smart, and other masculine traits, is what attracts women.
So, if women want to find attractive superheroes in comics, they already have, like, all of them. All males in comics are sexualized because they tend to have these traits.
Men are attracted to women with large breasts and round hips because they are fertile. Revealing clothing reveals their fertility. And suggestive poses show their receptiveness and submissiveness to male sexual advances.
Men and women are equally sexualized in comics (in fact, males moreso, due to feminists and gays taking over and enforcing puritan/muslim rules on female sexualization to neuter straights), but in different ways according to their biological designs and place in the natural order all things are created in.
>>65240394 >Psylocke's whole chicken drumstick pose wasn't particularly sexy either - that's half the point, all those weird poses that are justified "for fanservice" aren't being fapped to, they're just bad art justified by insulting the male readership.
They were intended to be sexy.
Which is another reason why the Hawkeye initiative is so petty and mean spirited.
The artists who made the original image were trying their best to make something good, the artists who make the initiative version are trying to make something bad to mock another artist.
There isn't a single artist in the world who hasn't made a mistake.
>>65240518 You're probably just a beta then. I've noticed the exact opposite. Feminists who whine about "patriarchy" and macho male behavior actually like being dominated sexually just like any other normal woman. It's just part of their nature.
This is why the uglier feminists try to convince the others that sex is bad. They don't want them to realize their true natures and the fact that they really DO want to be pursued by males and made submissive in bed.
>>65242141 Bug she's traveling downwards and lifting herself over a ledge. Spider-woman is totally for sex appeal, it's Milo Manara for cripesakes. But I see no actual issue with that apart from not finding it aesthetically pleasing. He's done better work.
>>65242209 No, but contrived poses that don't fit the scenario and are designed purely to make the depicted character a sexual object are.
Like, why is she crawling up a building in such a way that, despite the fact that she's just making it over the lip of the building and her legs are below her, her ass and spine are curving UPWARD just so that we can see her ass?
This is different from the Spider-Man pic, where the only reason we can see his ass is because, according to his downward-pointed position, it just makes sense.
It's like if for every action I had a character do, I had to think of a way for her to do it in a way that sexually presents her, and had to resort to contrived and awkward positions to make sitting in an armchair reading a newspaper sexy.
>>65242378 He didn't contrive a situation, he created a situation in which she'd be depicted sexually. The angle, the pose, and the scenario are all working towards a shot where we can see dat ass. She's traveling over the ledge while crawling down the step.
>>65242495 You're making our side look bad. If we're going to defeat the SJWs and keep feminism from destroying our comics and eradicating cheese cake, we can't act like this, or we'll look like the bad guys as they cry for sympathy like Anita sarkeysian. Instead of citing evolution or nature for why women in comics age sexy, we are much more credible using the Argument that men are just as sexualized because of their abs and tight costumes.
>>65242099 >>Crawling downward on a ball is the same as being on a flat surface, but curving your spine so that your ass sticks in the air for some reas Actually you just answered your own question. Since the ball is round you can curve around it. Since the wall is not, you can't.
>>65243005 Its 4chan dude. Even for every sperg who legitimately thinks he's helping by saying that there's 3 more idiots who just think saying dumb shit is hilarious. And telling them not to makes them think they're even funnier.
>>65243005 >Instead of citing evolution or nature for why women in comics age sexy, we are much more credible using the Argument that men are just as sexualized because of their abs and tight costumes. That won't matter. It honestly doesn't matter how polite you are or how well thought out your argument is, because you're dealing with a cultist.
>>65243146 Well, if we're gonna beat the SJW threat at their own game, we have to use politically correct arguments instead of saying things they can use against us. That's what gave Anita the upper hand.
>>65243509 When a girl goes on a shooting spree because she hates men, public opinion will finally be on our side. But for now, we look bad because feminists have brainwashed the masses. They are why nerd culture is looked down upon. Their propaganda and lies.
That's a good question, I have no idea what kind of romance I'd like to consume, it's never been something for me to buy or consider. I mean, a lot of stuff we watch has "romantic elements" but that's just the occupational hazards of the adventure or create a goal for the protagonist to achieve.
Maybe we already have a bunch of romanticized stuff aimed for us, it's just not directly about relationships. We romanticized war, and sailing on ships, and having super powers and solving crimes, and being apart of silly modern love triangles.
...Would Tenchi Muyo/Harem stuff count as romance for dudes? Like there's rarely any sex, the dude is just surrounded by girls which one of them will eventually be THE ONE.
Actually that tells me almost nothing since what Christians think about history is irrelevant, and Evolutionary Biology is generally looked down upon in the sciences and for good reason, as it is for the most part completely unempirical and based on assumptions.
>>65244245 I'm a sucker for characters that I can self insert as but those aside I wouldn't know. I guess just novels where guys court very idealized yet still realistic women. What I mean by that is give me bro as fuck chicks who can hang out with a guy or maybe a super cute opera singer who likes to cuddle or something. Idk but I've always been a sucker for romance.
>>65243727 Truth. Men are oppressed in this society. Women are the dominating sex. Women these days are sainted for emasculating and rejecting men and it is considered "cool" to give men fake numbers when they court you if you don't like how they look, instead of giving them a chance.
>>65242737 >>65242786 I never bought that argument because really I don't care that much to look like a super buff and clean cut super hero. I'd rather look like pic related. I think that's why the term "Man's man" exists. Just as women and men differ on what they believe to be the perfect women so do they differ on what they think the perfect man is. I think comic book characters just please the opposite sex with their physiques and not really the same one. The difference is guys just don't care that much while some women seem to be throwing a hissy fit over it nowadays.
>>65243658 >When a girl goes on a shooting spree because she hates men, I doubt it will ever happen and if it ever does it will be an anomolay. Biology dictates that men are larger and stronger than women but the down side is we're also much, much more physically violent. If a man hates women he might just go on a shooting spree or become a serial killer but if a women hates men she'll probably just cut her hair, stop shaving, and publish papers and books on why men suck while also being kind of a bitch to men irl.
>>65247680 Well if the man had the courage to do it and was very polite, it would be pretty rude to just toss them aside.
But that's the norm. Girls over boys. Men are taught to fear their own sexuality and never express it, because asking out a girl at the wrong place at the wrong time could get your sued for harassment. Hell, even if you are married, your wife can still charge you with rape or sexual assault, despite the fact that she married you and you aren't some stranger who doesn't have the right to touch her, but her own husband.
Imagine if you had a hobby. And now, ok, this hobby of yours might've been socially shunned. Riduculed, even.
Why, your sexual prowess, might've even been called in question - as though that actually had jack shit to do with your actual worth as a human being - in connection to it.
But. You know. Fuck what any an all judgemental jackasses may think of it; it's my fucking hobby.
Then a couple of Johnny-come-lately jackasses come around and starting to throw around some shit about how not only you're a bad person to like that shit, but, y'know, you're responsible for the suffering of other, actual flesh-and-bone human beings who are probably worth more than you by the sheer fact that they're breathing the same oxigen as you?
Well, I sure as fuck hope you're not going to make any fucking noise about it, buster.
>>65244119 I have no idea what are you talking about, but I'm from eastern europe, where people started hearing about feminism what, 10 years ago, and my aunt has a 40 years old collection of "Love novels", both imported from abroad and from local authors.
>>65248280 Its undoubtedly easier but I still think it seems like a shit way of doing it. Then again I'm a neck beard loser who knows little of actual dating so maybe its not that big a deal because maybe having guys take it real bad is a common thing.
Muh niggas. I'm sick of this SJW/feminist shit too and this proves nothing beyond how fucking PERVERTED SJWS because the only thing they ever seem to care about is sex, sex, sex, sex.
I mean sure, sex is nice and humans are horny, but these people have to pervert EVERYTHING where it's just getting fucking annoying and it's hypocritical because the vague point is supposed to be how these poses are somehow sexist and fan service or something yet they just create fap material for gays and women instead.
And this anon gets the larger point... >>65248145 like people come into our hobby, people who've shunned it before and started turning it their own personal soap box and porn machine.
I don't know /co/. /co/'s been like this for so long, you can't get a good discussion about a comic going but a discussion about a characters ass goes on for fucking days. It's an endless circle jerk. And if you have a problem with it you hate "fun" well yeah imagine you're in a room trying to talk about comics with some people and read some and show some and then their is this huge crowd just jerking off and shoving everyone into a corner while they flail around with their pants down. It's FFFFUNNN for you and your dicks but not fun for everyone else.
>>65248630 >people come into our hobby, people who've shunned it before and started turning it their own personal soap box and porn machine.
You never got over being bullied for liking something, you made it your whole identity, and now that it's finally successful and has respect, you want to be the gatekeeper with your boot on their necks now.
Yeah, you know what? I want a little fucking recogniztion and respect for staying true to myself and enjoying something despite these assholes trying to make me feel bad about it.
It sucks. GIRLS LOVE COMICS *apparently* according to Tumblrism but I still can't have a conversation about them with a girl without being called a dork or creepy.
But yeah you ignored the part where I was talking about how they ruin our hobby by over sexualizing. Why don't feminists go complain about football, I mean an all male team while the girls look sexy on the side lines? Shouldn't that fuel feminist rage?
>>65243291 Eh, I wouldn't say men are as sexualized though they still typically depict an unrealistic standard of beauty regardless of who it's supposed to appeal to not that that's a bad thing But I think the best tactic is admitting some of these poses are sexual and there's nothing wrong with sexuality in the right context. Also what are quality issues rather than sex issues. And yes admitting sometimes there are poorly placed t&a from some artists Trying to pretend there isn't a definite sexual edge to most superheroines is stupid but I think acting oblivious or ashamed of it is just giving them more ammo. An artist drew a pin up cover, so fucking what?
>>65242786 Romance novels are porn. You're comparing comic books to porn. It isn't the wicked burn you think it is to say that it's ok that comic books are just as bad as the things housewives use to masturbate.
What's the whole point of this backlash anyway? What is the endgame here? Completely sterile "respectful" poses in comics that most of these people will continue not to read? Did they judge this book by its variant cover?
>>65253573 Exactly. Why do women get jealous about the hot girls in our comic books, but then refuse to date us nerds and call us creepy? It's not fair. If they won't give us a chance, they should let us have the one sexual outlet we do have. If we can't have those, then they should start giving us chances instead of always going for assholes instead.
>>65248630 You've hit the nail on the head. The Hawk eye Initiative is one of the most infuriating things on the web. The spearhead of the SJW war on men. We are minorities in the society we built now. If a white person says anything, it's "racists"
>>65252454 >t sucks. GIRLS LOVE COMICS *apparently* according to Tumblrism but I still can't have a conversation about them with a girl without being called a dork or creepy.
Girls don't read comics, they only want to ruin them because men like them, so they must be destroyed.
It's working. Tumblr comics are flooding the market, like Batgirl and ms marvel. Completely sexless, like some Muslim country. I'm glad that marvel had the guts to give Angela a costume that isn't sterile and boring. She's what a female comic book character should look like, not some flat chested little boy like Batgirl.
And you're either really mad, or really bad at trolling.
It's not even MY hobby. I don't give a fuck about capes. Haven't given a fuck about them for some 15 years now.
It just gets really fucking tiresome, having to deal with idiotic bullshit from imbeciles that apparently are incapable of understanding things like "you are not entitled to be specifically catered to by publicly owned, for-profit entertainment corporations" whenever I want to read anything even tangentially related to comics.
And while it might surprise you, but I actually agree with the "identity" bit; just so long as we're also applying it to those oh-so-victimized people who just want to get into capes, but can't because boob windows and the Patriarchy and stuff.
>>65258385 Interesting you should bring up Angela in that context. This is what her writer said.
>>One of the original thoughts for the Angela: Asgard’s Assassin pitch was that I wanted Angela to scare the shit out of people. [laughs] She’s not a friendly presence; when she walks into the room, she makes people feel uneasy. The fact that she has a provocative costume is not part of it for me; there’s no cheesecake poses… she’s literally, a really scary motherfucker.
One of the artists has also made a point of saying that there will be no cheesecake. But she's keeping that 90's-as-fuck costume.
>>65259617 Rejected as not being heavily sexualised. The only thing it's got going for it is a tiny bit of ass, not very prominent in terms of exposure, angle or page position. Is that really the most sexualised male you can find? I was expecting a little more than that, even.
Check it - lips and bulge, enticing nudity, provocative position. This is a print, not a panel, so don't count this as evidence. It's not like this kind of thing is hard to spot - just look for something "porny".
Address the point, please - that being, namely, the fact that it's the exact same pose as Manara put Spiderwoman in, that sparked this idiotic "debate".
But all right. Say I concede. Women are typically depicted in sexually suggestive poses in a comic genre that has had a primarily male (you know, a demographic that generally has an interest in sexy women) for the last 60 years or so.
What of it?
It's "mysoginistic"? It's "teaching boys that women are objects"? It's "corrupting our youth", Dr. Wertham?
Well, you see, that's the thing about the free market. Companies can sell whatever product, and target whatever demographic they see fit, as long as they do it within the law (and unless you live in some absolutist theocracy, sexy women aren't against it); and on the other hand, you aren't under any sort of obligation to buy anything you object to.
And please spare me the "but they will go out of business" line. Do you work for Marvel or DC? Do you own stock on Disney or Warner?
So how is that any concern of yours, again?
Aren't you the consumer here? If these companies' products aren't meeting your expectations, take your business elsewhere.
>>65259976 You haven't followed the quote tree, evidently - start from >>65259175, which was a response to >>65239981. Also you're getting awfully defensive - I never said any of that shit.
I have no problem with sexy pictures in principle. I do say that using them in the wrong context, or sacrificing decent anatomy etc for a tit-shot, can be detrimental, aesthetically speaking. I also say that if Marvel and DC catered more towards females they could probably expand their fanbase and improve their profits.
>>65247980 >Men are taught to fear their own sexuality and never express it, because asking out a girl at the wrong place at the wrong time could get your sued for harassment. Hell, even if you are married, your wife can still charge you with rape or sexual assault, despite the fact that she married you and you aren't some stranger who doesn't have the right to touch her, but her own husband.
Nobody is taught that.
In fact, pretty much everything I was taught when it comes to how to treat women was put through the context of, "Because women are smaller, weaker, and less capable than you."
You don't come off too strong- not because the woman might sue you for harassment- but because you're likely bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than her and she could be intimidated and made uncomfortable.
>>65247980 >Hell, even if you are married, your wife can still charge you with rape or sexual assault, despite the fact that she married you and you aren't some stranger who doesn't have the right to touch her, but her own husband.
Holy shit, does this guy honestly think he should have the right to rape his wife?
>>65258147 I don't want to go too off topic but I suspect some women don't like alternative sexual outlets for men because it reduces male dependency on females for sex just like how some men don't like career oriented women because it reduces their dependency on men for wealth.
Why does a woman need a man if she can provide for herself and why does a man need a women if he can fulfill his sexual needs elsewhere? Granted, this is an oversimplification and even in a world where women can be independent and where men have a great variety and quality in sexual outlets there will still be many people seeking companionship from the opposite sex but my degree in broscience leads me to believe it has some validity.
>>65260972 Instead of coming up with moronic, half-baked hypotheses about sexual sociology, why not apply that thinkin' time to examining your life and evaluating your own thought processes? You could become a new man.
>>65261132 >why not apply that thinkin' time to examining your life and evaluating your own thought processes? Who says I don't? I can do more than one thing Anon, I have many hours throughout the day. And at the end of the day we're all here talking about comics and cartoons and shit so really most of us could find something more productive to do but that doesn't mean we have to.
>>65261236 I'm merely saying you haven't done it enough. The pet theory you trotted out is dumb. You should hold your beliefs more accountable, make sure they're logically founded and be alert to potential biases.
>>65261520 >I'm merely saying you haven't done it enough. And you would know this based on one comment?
>The pet theory you trotted out is dumb. You should hold your beliefs more accountable, make sure they're logically founded and be alert to potential biases. Its an idea I've put some thought into but not really too much and I even admitted that it was an oversimplification and not even a very well researched idea. If I can't post dumb shit on 4chan where the hell can I post it? Tumblr?
>>65261669 I sure do. If you were entirely rational and self-evaluatory then you wouldn't have put forward an idea like that. Of course you can post whatever shit you want, but that sort of lazy thinking taken to a greater degree is responsible for a lot of dumb sexist shitheads.
>>65242209 This one's problems aren't even the proportions (well, save for the arm) since it's based on a photo of Schwarzenegger. The thing is in the original Arnie stands at an angle towards the viewer but Liefeld fucked up Cap's neck and shoulder so they indicate he's standing in perfect profile while his chest is still at an angle.
>>65262058 The "Spider-Man Initiative" part, or "Hawkeye is the new Aquaman?" part? The former because, well, he DOES go into really weird poses. You could probably sell the point better by showing how narrow the line between parody and actual cover is, if you use him. The latter? Made fun of by casuals who only know him as "lol X". Aquaman was "lol, talks to fish." Hawkeye is "lol arrows".
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.