De-Objectify Women in Comics: A Guide

>in order to de-sexify Power Girl you must make her gain weight

problematic

>>94406014
Its muscle you faggot. Power girl with no muscle makse zero sence. Like a skinny super man

>>94405989
at least they dont just add 20 kgs and call it a day

File: 1496618868011.jpg (360KB, 699x707px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 699x707px

>>94405989
Gonna drop some Cho on this.

>>94405989
Stop trying to make women not sexy because your self consious of your own fat body you self absorbed cow

File: 2196297-1320260919697.png (55KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 400x400px

Why is this relevant or important and not just a pointless waste of everyone's time?

>>94405989
>makes a bait thread
>people fall for it
Congratulations you faggot, you accomplished being a successful cancer.

>>94405989
oh also I like the look of right more, just give her slightly bigger tits and hips and we're golden

it doesn't help that left isn't drawn that well in the first place, that ass/leg is very unflattering

>>94405989
The drawing on the right only make her hotter

File: 15877209_1150434378409555_2884892763508178944_n.jpg (112KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1080x1080px

>>94406014
>>94406068
>>94406073
>>94406082
>>94406084

I DEMAND HARDBODY WOMEN

>>94406120
Obviously, it was bait to pull you out of hiding.

I'm sure you're asked this a lot, but: Is it even possible to do that with soda cups?

File: Bong Rip Peeg.png (446KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 800x500px

>>94406120
Fuck it, POWER GIRL THREAD!!

>>94406014
Considering she has actual muscle mass, yeah. That design on the right is very similar to the Pal/Gray design. Just smaller boobs and a different style for the head.

I know there's likely gonna be a dogpile on this, but the left is a kind of look that should be used for specific kinds of characters rather than as a default, just like the right.

File: image.jpg (169KB, 589x900px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 589x900px

Ok

File: 1496618930377.jpg (1MB, 1565x2319px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1565x2319px

>>94406157
May as well fuck a dude

>>94405989
Right looks better.

>>94406158
Yea, it's cold though. Now the gif where it's shaking around like an earthquake, that takes skill.

File: 18888375_436349133390673_3741866329653641216_n.jpg (109KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1080x1080px

>>94406192

IF THIS IS A MAN THEN I AM A MIGHTY FAGGOT

File: PeegDaleEaglesham.jpg (124KB, 494x547px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 494x547px

>>94405989
If it's what they want to do do they really need a guide?
Isn't it as simple as saying...that seems too sexy to me.

>>94405989
When does the one that does the same for men come out? I would like to see how they will tone down the abs, strong jaw, overly heroic and fake posing and no more spandex. You know, to promote equality.

>>94406215
do you cosplay?

>>94406236
A lot of comic artists are too stupid and horny and lazy to try.

Seriously, look what happened to Mary Jane in the late 80's/early 90's.

>>94406217
I would be gay for a day if this is a dude, top only.

>>94406217
sauce?

>>94406266
It's already out; we call it "every thread mocking Rob Liefeld and Jim Lee."

File: tumblr_nacymfXqKX1rd8ny7o1_1280.jpg (67KB, 600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x1200px

>>94406266
>You know, to promote equality.

There's different ways to do things.

>>94406280
She was a fucking supermodel she was supposed to be sexy you ass

File: 853996e3712a7f3f54fbe11229feb29c--jane-watson-amazing-spiderman.jpg (229KB, 736x1108px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 736x1108px

>>94406280
What happened?
Also "try" goes against what OP is implying.
If they're too horny and lazy to try that's their choice.

File: 15876479_266710283745044_9214521247424053248_n.jpg (102KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1080x1080px

>>94406284
>>94406286

Her name is Natasha Aughey. She has a vagina.

>>94405989
>I'm not pretty so everything else must be as ugly as me or uglier.

File: 1475307320596.png (460KB, 565x488px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 565x488px

>>94406068
Interesting choice of comparison, assuming we're talking about a Kryptonian Power Girl.
Their strength doesn't come from their muscles. Their powers don't make them put on muscle mass. Their powers idealize their bodies. Thus Superman is ripped, and Power Girl is curvy. You can make the muscle argument for, say, Batwoman, but not for Power Girl.
Thus Power Girl should have the body seen on the left in the OP


The right-hand pose in OP, however, is the superior one, as it is more dignified and battle-ready.

>>94406350
>Natasha Aughey
idk she looks a little trappy.

File: Wondercepts.jpg (1MB, 1988x3056px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1988x3056px

>>94406217
>cosplaying as Wonder Woman
>Wonder Woman tattoo
>Wonder Woman shower curtains
Guys I think she's a Catwoman fangirl.

File: Power_Girl_0084.jpg (107KB, 380x736px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 380x736px

>>94406358
Nah that makes no sense.
Superman gets all beefy.
Peeg should get beefy too.
But attractively so.

I mean Sexual Dimorphism is a thing.

>>94406136
I know right. Count on a dyke to assume what men like and get it completely wrong.

>>94406273
I dressed up as Sailor Jupiter once.

>>94406392
>I mean Sexual Dimorphism is a thing.
It is, and you clearly don't know what it means.

>distinct difference in size or appearance between the sexes of an animal in addition to difference between the sexual organs themselves.
>distinct difference
>distinct difference
>distinct difference

File: tumblr_n8do7yY4en1t898ako1_1280.jpg (96KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 640x640px

>>94406372

Where could she be hiding a dick?

>>94406303
>She became a supermodel/actress to coincide with this.
Fixed that for you, anon. She didn't become a model at all until the late 70's/early 80's and didn't become a big ass deal supermodel until the mid 80's.

Either way, that's no excuse for how artists ditched the iconic Romita design and made her look like a shitty generic hot woman.

File: Miahot.webm (1MB, 384x475px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 384x475px

>>94406425
No that was exactly my point.
She should be buff but like a woman would naturally get buff......and with titties.

File: 1473280598644.png (896KB, 839x979px) Image search: [Google]

896KB, 839x979px

>>94406414
Pics?

>tfw your gf is too shy to cosplay
>tfw your best female friend likes to cosplay, but only at cons and you never end up at the same cons

>>94406454
You chose poor wording, then. The figure of the woman in your webm would be acceptable for PG, though.

File: 2704214-justice_society_of_america_v2__01_34_35_built.jpg (1MB, 2560x1971px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1971px

>>94406460
Anon...she's not real.
It's just a guy who's been keeping up this game for years.

>>94406451
>shitty generic hot woman
>hot woman
>shitty
Spotted the gay/jealous female hamplanet.

>>94406429
idk

>>94406429
I believe she's a woman but that picture does not help your case. It looks like she's tucking it upwards.

File: 1501823457692.jpg (88KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 640x480px

>>94406476

>>94406301
None of these are sexist.

File: 15624605_206778576449124_3722259468939952128_n.jpg (134KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1080x1080px

>>94406504
>>94406520

bruh I don't care if she had a 14 inch pecker

File: MJStays.jpg (2MB, 1366x1964px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1366x1964px

>>94406341
Exactly what you posted. Most of the artists gave up on keeping her anywhere near on model and just drew whatever they thought was hot. The only thing that even reads "Mary Jane" in that pic is red hair.

>>94406526

The first one is objectifying and you know it.

>>94406495
>Generic
>Not shitty
Found the tasteless 12 year old with no standards.

File: Space thiccness.png (2MB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x960px

Lets just flip this to full on cheesecake, who wants some Frazetta?

>>94405989
I don't think I've ever actually seen a published power girl drawn like the left.

The right actually is a lot closer to what I typically see.

>>94406584
They're using Power Girl as an example because anyone can understand that the left is wrong. It's more characters like Raven who get drawn like that.

>>94406560
Get back to your Häagen-Dazs, lardo.

>>94406584
It's an amalgamation of a bunch of things the artist doesn't like.

The showing off ass and tits pose, boobsocks on the costume, heels.

>>94406558
It's sexual, not degradation. If a man was dressed this way like the bottom and the woman was covered head to toe, it'd be sexual, not sexist.

Angry?

>>94405989
this guide can fuck off, first sentence already states that the artist doesn't think about what he or she is drawing.

>>94406558
Why is the first objectifying but you are okay with the last one? The woman is wearing the exact same outfit.

>>94406603
When exactly?
I'd think Psylocke would be more the go to.
And even then I can only eally think back to Jim Lee once or twice.

>>94406358
But WHY Superman is ripped, and Power Girl isn't? Are you trying to imply that Kryptonian DNA has some concept of beauty that it tries to impose on Kryptonian bodies in presence of yellow sun radiation?
That their DNA is sentient and likes boobs? Because if so, that's the most retarded retcon I've heard since the rapist Doctor Light brainwashing. And that one was pretty dumb.

If anything, their appearance comes either from
a) being of perfect health - if so, Power Girl should be definitely muscular and of average weight (definitely not skinny!) with medium-
sized boobs (low fat!) because that's the optimal look for health of a person - basically she should look like an Olympic athlete;
b) their looks come from their lifestyle - Superman and Power Girl regularly lift cars and lampposts and throw people at walls and stuff, which is probably enough to give workout and tone muscles even to people with super strength (remember the scene from Incredibles where Mr Incredible works out using train cars? Yeah). I assume a Kryptonian on earth who WOULDN'T fight all the time would be exactly as scrawny as a regular person, but would still have superstrength etc, but it wouldn't change their bodies.

And since Peej is a superhero who does physical feats all the time, she should be ripped.

>>94406615
>"I like it when women are sexy in multiple ways instead of drawn exactly the same."
>"Y-You're FAT!!!"
Riveting argument, Jimmy.

>>94406653
Because the guy is also sexualized.

>>94405989
What's the matter? You have nothing to objectify?

>>94406082
>My intent is to help those who WANT to promote change in their work (which can be challenging). Not to shame those who choose otherwise
Cho doesn't want to change, so chapter closed. No need to be butthurt about it.

>>94406675
>everyone must be sexual or everyone must be non sexual
HAH. Everyone laugh at the retard.

>>94406675
Then the answer should be, "Yes." But you've tipped your hand. It has to do with you being pissed men are enjoying themselves more than an actual problem.

>>94406675
Bloated hamplanet alert. Keep being angry over sexual themes, it's funny.

>>94406301
>No combination/answer for a scantily clad man and fully armored woman.
Gee.

>>94405989
The only problem I see with the right is the nose and eyes. Nose shape looks completely different from what is on the left and the eyes must be a little lower. Otherwise I'd prefer the right girl. She has nice body.

File: Superfamily.jpg (136KB, 545x800px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 545x800px

>>94406659
That or Kryptonians have different physiology based on sex. Y'know like people.
So she should be beefy but she has more natural fat to keep on and work with unlike a dude.

>>94406688
Sexist: discriminating based on sex.

The first drawing discriminates based on sex, stripping one character, but fully clothing another.

Ergo, it discriminates based on sex, ergo it's sexist, and picture title was "Is it sexist?"

Everything is correct, you're a retard, QED.

>>94406675
So being objectified isn't a bad thing. It's only bad when it happens to one group? How does that work?

File: Swamp Demon.jpg (480KB, 640x866px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 640x866px

>>94406686

File: Ravenacolor.jpg (29KB, 250x359px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 250x359px

>>94406655
Jim Lee is a pretty good example, yes.
Perez was a bit more tasteful, but the artists these kinds of posts are talking about are contemporaries to Jim and Rob or kids who grew up idolizing/copying them.

File: dimorphism.jpg (218KB, 760x596px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 760x596px

>>94406301
I dunno if sexist is the word I'd put on the first one, but it certainly still is kinda dumb if there's no clear reason behind having the two characters or genders look so different. I assume the chart is supposed to be representing default body types for background characters and general characters and not presenting two specific character designs.

>>94406735
The body is fine, the face looks like an orc if you pretend the hair isn't there. They purposely mad the face look masculine because female = male now. The left face is a bit too sensual with the open mouth, and I'm sure if you closed it, it'd look fine on the body to the right.

>>94406752
see: >>94406725

File: 1489463166869.jpg (70KB, 636x438px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 636x438px

>>94406539
Todd McFarlane was the one who first had MJ adopt a Cindy Crawford look, since MJ was an in-demand model at the time

>>94406752
There is no context my friend, so your words mean nothing. Second, it's sexual, not sexist. If she feels empowered with being scantily clad, who is a hamplanet like you to say otherwise? The truth is, it's sexual, not sexist. Just like a man being scantily clad and the woman being clothed. Just because you're disgusted by the human body doesn't mean everyone else is.

File: flashpoint superman.jpg (327KB, 590x750px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 590x750px

>>94406659
Because Clark got his body before his power started to developed, he life most of his life doing farm work. And on the opposite coin you have flashpoint superman, who is scrawny and spent living in a lab doing nothing.

>>94406768
But what you posted isn't neceassarily an exampl of OP.
No butts boobs pose,
No individual titty socks.
Is there even heels?

File: 006a51494b1e10e66402657bcc8e52b6.jpg (165KB, 628x960px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 628x960px

>>94406758
>It's only bad when it happens to one group? How does that work?
They are not treated equally and that's the root of evil? Because equality is important, don't you think?

>>94406752
You're saying some people can't be sexual when others aren't, and that's preposterous. Get out of the club Jimmy, you're off your rocker.

>>94406815
>They are not treated equally and that's the root of evil? Because equality is important, don't you think?
What if they're not equal?

jesus what is with these women, all they want is control. These people should get over themselves and realise nothing is stopping them from making their own comics and shouldn't try to stop others from making theirs.

>>94406837
This.
>EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE EQUAL BECAUSE EQUAL OUTCOME IS THE WAY THE WORLD NEEDS TO BE
Pathetic.

>>94406800
Oh I'm aware, and Romita drifted over the years as well, but it's still really shitty. Peter's design changes subtly over decades, but once MJ was Peter's spouse, oh shit, better be lazy and draw her like what *I* find hot instead of considering her design! It's fucking awful.

Cho's art is boring. He's like an inferior Benes.

>>94406815
But if you are fine with the last picture, it means that objectification isn't a bad thing. Since if that were the case the last picture should have been the very worst of all, since it happens to more people.

Either objectification (of fictional characters, mind you) is a bad thing and that last picture the worst form to combat it, or objectification isn't that bad after all and all pictures are fine.

>>94406084
That one anon too dumb to read.

>>94406301

It's sexist to have crazy tall Amazons embarrass manlets?

>>94406813
>No butts boobs pose
I'll grant you that I didn't pull up an incidental panel like that. It is about as close as you can get without breaking the spine, though.
>No individual titty socks.
Nigga are you blind?
>Is there even heels?
Yeah.

File: tumblr_nacymfXqKX1rd8ny7o1_1280.jpg (162KB, 600x1681px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 600x1681px

>>94406725
>>94406526
>>94406635
>>94406653
>>94406688
>>94406691
>>94406715
>>94406758
>>94406815
>>94406837
>>94406896

For those of you with autism, are you happy now?

>>94406925
>Yes for the guy scantily clad and woman in armor.
>Missing the point literally this hard.
Like hell it is. Men don't care. Women shouldn't either.

>Objectify
I fucking hate the way SJW's use this term. How is making a character sexy objectifying them any more than having a waiter pore you water is objectifying them as a water spout?

>>94406236
It would be if sexy was like, "an extra". It's very common so people interiorize it as a rule, or just get a bias towards it. It's like, people that have a difficulty drawing ugly/old men.

File: bb022fd2bc067cfcd4e5526cd05e34c7--frank-cho-jungle-girl.jpg (123KB, 600x948px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 600x948px

>>94406870
>Inferior Benes
For real?
Cho is a bit over rated but he atleast has good anatomy and knows how to give gravity to his bodies.
>>94406924
It's a titty pocket, the boobs share rather than getting their own rooms.

File: notsexist.jpg (161KB, 600x1681px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 600x1681px

>>94406925
How about a better one purse puppy?

File: weightlifters.png (1MB, 1008x603px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1008x603px

>>94406741
Ok, but the thing is, here's some male and female weightlifters. You can clearly see the differences between their weight classes are MUCH more visible than differences between their genders. Those are what some of the strongest people in the world look like, and Superman wouldn't look THAT out of place among them - but Peej would look like a photo model who somehow wandered onto a weightlifting competition.

Power Girl and Superman have almost exact same, physically demanding lifestyle - they're flying bricks "cape" superheroes who save people from bank robberies and burning buildings, and in their secret ID fucking nerds (one is a reporter, other runs a software companies), there is no reason for their body types to look THIS different.

I'd buy it if Power Girl had a leaner body because she was a speedster and spend most of her time running; or if she was less muscular because she was a detective type hero; but she simply doesn't look like the type of hero she is.

>>94406954

Cho's skilled but he comes across as stiff to me. His animals and environments are nice but nothing ever feels dynamic when he draws it. He's the only artist where his splash pages bore me.

>>94406946
>How is making a character sexy objectifying them

Because like 95% of media is then done through the "male gaze"
Which is why you get slowmo shots of women washing cars in michael bay's transformer movies, but none with dudes

File: this is heman.jpg (62KB, 683x681px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 683x681px

>>94406925
>>94406943

File: Supergirl_Elseworlds_Finest_001.jpg (88KB, 500x788px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x788px

>>94406947
Ugly and old guys are super easy though.

The point is if it's what the artist wants. If they see an issue with the sexiness of their characters then there's no internalization.

>>94406925
You didn't stipulate "if they draw all characters like this in everything they do" so no, their autism will not be sated.

File: memes are not facts.jpg (60KB, 500x507px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x507px

>>94406983

He-Man is a rare outlier

>>94406976
>bottom rights face
I mean she could probably obliterate me in a fight but her face is absolutely hilarious.

>>94406999
Well really that seems like the artist's problem.

>>94405989
Women need to fuck off. They always want to find ways to ruin shit. So fucking sick of them.

>>94406980
That doesn't really answer his question.

>>94407014
Conan. Superman. Spiderman. Should I keep going?

>>94407025
Yeah? Isn't that the point?

>>94406158
dude there are tiddies that can crush soda cans all on their own this is their least potential

File: Lionowronghand.jpg (501KB, 1056x819px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1056x819px

>>94407014
>Rare Outlier
Not in the 80s....or afterwards.

>>94407035
>That doesn't really answer his question.

It does, because the idea of egalitarian or equal objectification falls aprat whe nthe actual numbers get crunched.

Like, yes, women get novels with sex shirtless cowboy on the cover, men get like all television and film.

>>94406980
>none with dudes
Twilight, 50 Shades, Wonder Woman, etc
Your argument is weak bro. Men are sexualized aplenty in the media and the fact that a feminist movie (wonder woman) objectified a man in a movie about empowerment and equality is hilarious.

I liked the movie though. Your argument is just shit.

>>94407058
>>94407036

You're all forgetting that Cheetaraand She-Ra were as scantily clad as their male equivalents.

>>94406659
>But WHY Superman is ripped, and Power Girl isn't?
Because idealized men are muscular. Idealized women are slim but curvy. It's the traditional idea of beauty in modern times. Artists draw what they perceive to be ideal and aesthetically pleasing.

>>94407067
Literally every single bodice ripper novel is 100% about getting women off.

>>94407067
So women objectify men more in novels and men objectify women more in films. Seems more like a difference in chosen medium to me.

>>94407083
Maybe, but there were armored women in those shows, too. Like Man-at-arm's daughter. Women never remember that. Just the shit they want to be triggered about.

>>94407084
Obviously the sun is a sexist.

File: 1469644829330.jpg (69KB, 498x482px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 498x482px

>>94406976
>Power Girl and Superman have almost exact same, physically demanding lifestyle
Their
strength
does
not
come
from
their
muscles
and
is
not
based
on
their
muscle
mass.

Flashpoint Superman was absurdly powerful (far too quickly), and tore people apart while looking like fucking Disney Ichabod Crane.

Apply your argument to anyone fundamentally human, like Black Canary or Batwoman.

It
does
not
work
for
Power
Girl.

>>94407014
Still look at media in the 80s and 90s and even early 2000s there was never any cries for cartoons characters/toys being a unrealistic standard for young boys to achieve. At best thing were just too "violent" for young boys.

>>94407077
>>none with dudes
>Twilight, 50 Shades, Wonder Woman, etc
>Your argument is weak bro. Men are sexualized aplenty in the media and the fact that a feminist movie (wonder woman) objectified a man in a movie about empowerment and equality is hilarious.
>I liked the movie though. Your argument is just shit.

Twilight was one franchise that's dead and gone. Wonder Woman is ONE movie.
The numbers are against you.
You don't have an argument.

>>94407083
She-ra had a full-on dress and cape. He-man was way more naked than her, by far.

>>94407014
Nearly all male superheroes are 10/10 hunks with skin tight costumes. Isn't that just as unrealistic for men as Barbie is for women? Also didn't they make a fat Barbie recently or something?

>>94406946
If you're going to reduce them as people, sure. They're both cases of objectification. Though doing it on a large number of people, based on broader criteria like being women, makes it worse.

Honestly objectification is always bad, but if you're not even choosing to let others objectify you, it's worse.

/copol/ vs /cotumblr/...... oh boy......

>>94406983
Except He-Man is LITERALLY a scrawny cowardly boy who gets his muscles MAGICALLY by yelling a MAGIC FUCKING WORD. He doesn't work for them, there is no unrealistic expectation because there IS no expectation. He looks like that because he's a power fantasy, because boys WANT to look like that.

Fun fact, you ever noticed that there is no transforming female heroes that look like Barbie? Female transforming hero are either impossibly cute and overdressed like magical girls, or badass and dressed in regular, non-sexualized dress like She-Ra or Amethyst Princess of Gemworld.

... I wonder why that is...

>>94407084
This. How many women actually want to see a scrawny 5'9 manlet romance the lady lead? Not many. The entire idea of aesthetic beauty is based on our principles and tastes of society. No one is whining for the majority of movies to star dot head indians and asian men as it's not what the West wants. The same applies to other societies as well.

>>94407161
>girls don't want to look hot

>>94407150
>Isn't that just as unrealistic for men as Barbie is for women?

No, because men in comics are drawn with idealized athletic bodies for men, while women in comics are often drawn as eyecandy for men.

File: 1501869474921.jpg (198KB, 600x2061px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 600x2061px

>>94406925
It's good but I've made a quick fix

>>94407128
Vampire diaries, Lucifer, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, etc. Listen dipshit, I can continue to name things or you can continue to not have an argument. This is your last (You) as you don't have a leg to stand on. Both men and women are sexualized aplenty.

Anger leads to hate. :^)

>>94407161
>He-man wanted to look that way!
She-ra wanted to look that way. It's just a glamour fantasy for girls.

File: junk.png (198KB, 1001x502px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1001x502px

>>94406973
>>94406925
>>94406301
I think the sexy people should have the frumpy people as their minions.

>>94406811
I mean, uh, no. Picture says "is it sexist". It discriminates based on sex. It's sexist.

What you're actually arguing is whether sexism is bad.

Also I'm not disgusted by human body, I'm actually bisexual and I wish we had more of the third 'type' (with sexy chicks AND guys) out there actually.

>>94407161
Dude Adam was ripped as fuck even without his He-man powers in the original show.

File: e0ffae30107f8063c0025d44d82f3cf5.png (61KB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x200px

>>94407161
>Except He-Man is LITERALLY a scrawny cowardly boy
>Prince Adam
>scrawny
Want to know how I know you've never seen the original cartoon?

>>94407161
>The prince.
>Scrawny.
Dude he was athletic as fuck.

>>94406659

>But WHY Superman is ripped, and Power Girl isn't?

go to the gym and you will find out why

>>94407198
By default, no it's not sexist. It would however, make a hilarious comedy adventure for the minions.

>>94407193
>Vampire diaries, Lucifer, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, etc.
You couldn't even name five.
>Listen dipshit, I can continue to name things or you can continue to not have an argument.
Sweetie, you don't even have an argument.
>This is your last (You) as you don't have a leg to stand on. Both men and women are sexualized aplenty.
It's disproportionately women who are sexualized.

>Anger leads to hate. :^)
;D Being passive aggressive means you're afraid to confront me. Fear leads to anger. And you're already afraid.

File: mp27t.jpg (47KB, 700x392px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 700x392px

>>94407161
he has the same fucking body type, the only difference is that he has less clothes. Even Adam in the 2000 version had muscle definition.

>>94406659
Why? It's a very rare exception even in women who do constant sports that end up getting ripped. It's just biology.

>>94406983
Another anon who can't read.

>>94405989

all one needs to do is give the women more specific looks. Some artists will just give every character a huge ass or even a very defined hourglass figure but it would be a nice change of pace to have characters with truely definitive shapes.

Which is why leaving Power Girl alone and to Amanda Connor makes sense.

>>94407240
>implying the naked ones aren't the minions
There's a reason the other two won't let them wear clothes.

>>94407200
No, because what if this is the context of a matriarchy society which women fight like this? What if the woman is a slave? What if they are gods and one is the female goddess of sexuality, and the other is the god of manlets? The point is, that it's sexual, not sexist. These pictures by themselves mean absolutely nothing except that sometimes the women is sexual, and sometimes the man is sexual. Sometimes both are clothed, and sometimes both are bombastically sensual. Without context (which the picture provides nothing), it's not sexist - it's sexual.

>>94407263

Those are two different people. Are you suggesting Prince Adam and He-Man are the same person?

Prince Adam wears pink! He-Man doesn't wear pink! It doesn't make sense.

>>94407263
Guys....I think Prince Adam and He-Man might be connected somehow.

>>94407261
Not him but he listed six. Do you want people to do your research for you or something? He gives you plenty of sources and you continue to not give actual defense of how the media is skewed. Give references and examples, it would help your argument.

>>94407124
Their strength doesn't come from their muscles, but does LOOK OF THEIR BODIES - because we're discussing APPEARANCE now - come from their lifestyle, is the question I'm asking? And I say YES.

Yesh, Flashpoint Superman is absurdly powerful because of his powers, but he was getting no exercise, meaning his mucles (unnecessary, purely cosmetic muscles) were small.

Superman's powers first manifested when he was 15, canonically.
Let's think about that.
Unless you're trying to convince me that Superman was THIS impossibly ripped at FIFTEEN and his body didn't change at all since then, you're clearly retarded. In fact, you're also CANONICALLY wrong because depictions of Superman from that period always show him as a regular healthy boy, he only becomes super muscled as an adult - and including "Superboy" stuff he was doing the whole superhero shtick for a while now by then.

His muscles clearly toned as he was doing stuff as Superman, even if they weren't NECESSARY for these feats - they still felt aftereffects.

When Superman gets punched, which you can see every time - he feels pain. You can knock wind out of him. He can't get WOUNDED, not really, but his body will still react to some degree.

>>94406157
>tattoo
daddy issues, into the trash she goes

>>94407299
>manlet and womanlet being the rulers of these two obvious deities
Wrong.

>>94407347
>implying manlets aren't the most powerful race on earth
Just ask Napoleon.

>>94407364
He got rekt, just like Adolf Hitler.

>>94407382
Yeah, by other manlets.

>>94405989
i mean the boobs on the right look better, but that's just because they're anatomically correct

>>94407097
Yeah, if it was anywhere near equivalent. There's also novels objectifying women, by the way.

You can't really go "Welp, you have a genre of novels, and we get the rest of media and culture. Tit for Tat". It'd be a pretty desperate false analogy.

>>94407385
>FDR was 6'2
Face it Mr 5'6, you are the servants of the world.

>>94407396
>novels for women, written by women, bought by women, that women enjoy, and fantasize about, and probably shlick to
>objectify women

File: junk.png (197KB, 1001x502px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1001x502px

>>94407347
Just stick some symbols of authority and subservience in there.

>>94407408
>wheelchair bound
lol curse of the lanklet

>>94407430
I mean, FDR also had a penis size of 8" and 6" girth. For a lanklet he could have all the bitches he wanted.

>>94407416
Swap the genders and it's perfectly ideal for the triggering.

>>94407322
>Not him but he listed six.
He listed three where I quoted.
>Do you want people to do your research for you or something?
I already did my research, I can count.
>He gives you plenty of sources
No he didn't.
>and you continue to not give actual defense of how the media is skewed.
If I have to explain that water is wet to engage in an argument then we're not really having a conversation, you can just perpetually shift goal posts by insisting you don't understand what numbers are.
>Give references and examples, it would help your argument.

I am an actual human being who lives in the real world. There is a bright star in the sky we call the sun. The sky is usually blue. Most movies, comic books, cartoons, television shows, and media in general objectifies women by sexualizing them in way that is preferential to the male perspective. It's overwhelmingly, factually, unarguably, slanted in favor of men.

To deny this is to deny reality.

>>94407396
There are also movies objectifying men. Most of them do, in fact. if there is ever a scene where people get killed en masse, you can bet "the numbers" that it is most likely going to be men.

>There's plenty of water in the rivers! Same as the oceans
>The Nile, Ganges, Mississippi.
>I can continue naming large rivers!
>Rivers have as much water as the ocean.

>>94407451
>can't even use it
He couldn't even stand up. Probably needed help to shit.

>>94407410
>let me just ignore the argument to argue a pedantic sidepoint, nobody will notice my autism

>>94407410
I was just saying novels in general actually. Like the format. That said, there are novels objectifying women written by women. A woman doing it doesn't really make it okay.

>>94407462
>Most movies, comic books, cartoons, television shows, and media in general objectifies women by sexualizing them in way that is preferential to the male perspective. It's overwhelmingly, factually, unarguably, slanted in favor of men.
This does not automatically make it sexist or objectifying. Men like women. You'll just need to accept this and stop being afraid of cooties.

>>94407491
>It's autistic to point out women literally choose these things.
>Now don't you dare ignore my missing argument that's been BTFO multiple times already.

>>94407462
>gives no actual citation and reference
>base your argument on feelings and what you think is happening
Listen. By default I have to agree with him because he gives plenty of citation off the top of his head. You have given nothing except what you FEEL is happening. Trump supporters can FEEL he's popular, but without citation and reference the argument is naught.

Give actual substance or fuck off.

>>94407498
>A woman doesn't think it's objectifying, writer or readers.
>Therefore it's objectifying.
Love to see which novel you're talking about here.

>>94407466
>if there is ever a scene where people get killed en masse, you can bet "the numbers" that it is most likely going to be men.

We're discussing sexual objectification, which is usually considered degrading.

What you're conflating is the idea that any kind of tragedy or nobility in death is equivalent to sexual objectification, which is plainly a false comparison.

>>94407481
>you need to stand up to have sex
You can't see it, but this is my smug face.

>>94407538
You need to be able to get it up to have sex.

>>94407466
>>94407193


Read
>>94407477

>>94407505

You literally can't even confront that I'm correct.

File: junk 2.png (174KB, 1001x730px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1001x730px

>>94407453

File: WhoAreTheRealRulers.png (1MB, 1001x502px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1001x502px

>>94407416
By default your picture is wrong.

>>94407530
>You can only bring up the relevant ideas I allow you to!
Feminists, everyone.

But you're still wrong. Being sexist is not the same thing as objectification. Objectification is not the same thing as sexism.

You don't get to dictate where this conversation leads because you might get destroyed.

It's reality.

You need to deal with it.

>>94407551
Because you're not.

>>94407569
>Not putting the giant penises on both of the women.
Shit taste, fempai.

>>94406157
nice buldge tbqh

>>94407589
>implying womanlets would have a big penis
HAH.

>>94407154
> Though doing it on a large number of people, based on broader criteria like being women
What are you talking about? How is an individual super hero being sexy objectifying all women?
>>94406980
Watch any anime directed towards woman.

>>94407517
>Listen. By default I have to agree with him because he gives plenty of citation off the top of his head.
Incorrect. You are biased toward him because you're unwilling to concede that I'm right.

>You have given nothing except what you FEEL is happening. Trump supporters can FEEL he's popular, but without citation and reference the argument is naught.
Trump won you moron.
>Give actual substance or fuck off.

Fuck you. Go to imdb. Look at every movie ever made. Count and calculate every role every given to ever man woman and child in the history of film and compare their marketing campaigns and cultural perceptions.

And boy you sure better submit your findings to every agency in the world. And then years from now when you're an accredited master in film, then and only then might I consider anything you have to say possibly worth thinking.

>>94407619
>What are you talking about? How is an individual super hero being sexy objectifying all women?
Because according to feminism all women are superheroes and all men are suprevillains with eyebeam male gaze powers, duh.

>>94407180
>No, because men in comics are drawn with idealized athletic bodies for men, >women in comics are often drawn as an idealized body's for women
Fixed

>>94407530
>Dying by being shot like a dog is noble.
>Being a faceless mook that gets on the stage, is shot in the head, and is never given a second thought or ever shown again shows tragedy instead of expendability.
>Sexual objectification is degrading, being literal cannon fodder isn't.
>Only sexual objectification matter, except for when it happens to men, that's a power fantasy and/or never happens. And if it happens it only happens in books and not constantly in movies. And books don't count because I said so.

Okay.

>>94407546
>https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/04/18/fdrs-secret-love
FDR was a wheel chair bound player. It was common occurance to hear his wheels creaking upon the floorboards of the Red Room with his mistress.

>>94407625
If you won't accept opinions from people based on ridiculous credential standards why should we accept your volatile feelings on the subject?

>>94405989
I honestly find the one on the right much sexier.

Am I gay, /co/?

>>94406301
Manlets
WWTL?

>>94407625
>Go to imdb
>wants me to do his research for him
>says he doesn't want me too
Listen fupa, you obviously have no citation so I'm just going to stop responding. Also Trump lost the popular vote silly, he is by definition the less popular candidate. That doesn't mean he isn't president - He is.

>>94407571
>Feminists, everyone.
>But you're still wrong. Being sexist is not the same thing as objectification. Objectification is not the same thing as sexism.
>You don't get to dictate where this conversation leads because you might get destroyed.
>It's reality.
>You need to deal with it.

Was there an argument in there? Because all I'm reading is that you got destroyed and have nothing to back up your perspective.

>Because you're not.
I know you are, but what am I?

>>94405989
Anyone else just think she looks uglier? I mean, I'm sure you can redesign a character to look less sexy, but still cool.

De-objectify a character is all well and good, but you have to make up for it someplace else. Sexyness is obviously a big part of powergirls appeal. Remove that, and replace it with nothing and you only hurt the design.

File: junk 3.png (191KB, 646x928px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 646x928px

>>94407453

>>94407681
>This is how, "Women's Studies," teaches you to make your point.

>>94407619
>Watch any anime directed towards woman.

And there's a 500:1 ration of anime directed towards men.

>>94407664
No, it just means you're not a basement dweller, and you probably masturbate more to real women than cartoons.

>>94407678
He's at 25% I believe in polls, if you can believe them.

>>94407639
>Fixed

Lies.

File: snu snu.jpg (43KB, 417x413px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 417x413px

>>94407700
I actually laughed.

>>94407700
Second one should instead of "no" have the "That's my fetish" reaction pic.

>>94407067
>men get like all television and film.
Lol no. Every capeshit or action movie or drama movie or drama/action tv show has buff, shirtless men.

File: No.png (201KB, 646x928px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 646x928px

>>94407700

>>94405989
Is it weird that my perfect PG would be somewhere in between those two?

>>94407664
The one on the right is better, but that doesn't mean the artist isn't a passive agressive whiner.

>>94407709
Because women don't make anime. They should get off their lazy asses and contribute. But they won't because it's much easier for them to gripe about men.

>>94407710
Found the hamplanet complaining about impossible body images.

>>94406659
>But WHY Superman is ripped, and Power Girl isn't?
She is. Busty women tend to look more muscular than skinny women, it comes with being bigger all-together.

Regardless, it's common knowledge that women don't have the same muscle mass as men. You take a good look at female Athletes and compare them to their male counterparts, and you'll see that the female's muscles aren't as large or defined

File: chobits_900x350.jpg (55KB, 900x350px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 900x350px

>>94407748
Chobits was made by a team of girls tho.
>Literally objectifies women

>>94407645
>>Dying by being shot like a dog is tragic.
Correct.
>>Being a faceless mook that gets on the stage, is shot in the head, and is never given a second thought or ever shown again shows tragedy instead of expendability.
Yes, your moron.
>>Sexual objectification is degrading, being literal cannon fodder isn't.
It can be two things, you idiot. You are creating a false binary that there has to be a comparison between the two.
>>Only sexual objectification matter,
I never claimed this. You created that through your bias.
>except for when it happens to men,
I never claimed this.
>that's a power fantasy and/or never happens.
I never claimed this.
>And if it happens it only happens in books and not constantly in movies. And books don't count because I said so.
>Okay.

You're a fucking idiot who can't do math. I wanna talk about apples and you wanna compare them to oranges.

>>94407748

They don't make anime in large numbers, but plenty of them write manga. Including porn that "objectifies women".

>>94407784
Internalized misogyny silly anon.

>>94407730
That's like saying My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is directed at male adult dudebros because you can occasionally see Derpy in the background.

Are you aware of the term 'periphery demographic'? That is what women generally are for people making capeshit, except perhaps Wonder Woman.

>>94407795
>It's still objectifying!
Or maybe you're just wrong about the objectifying?

>>94407812
Still means it's made for women though.

>>94407760
No need to get so defensive, it's okay to be a neckbeard and have no female contact.
>Inb4 I HAVE FOUR GFS, I GET LOT OF PUSSY, YOU HAMPLANET WAAAA

>>94407663

Because you have to be rational in the first place for me to give a shit about your perspective.

Guess what, I'm totally, utterly, absolutely correct. Of most of the media that exists, most of it sexualizes women rather than men.

None of you can prove that I'm not wrong. And because none of you can, then I'm right.

>>94407263
¿Quién apagó la luuuz?

>>94407725
Women Artist still draw women as busty and slim n shit

So no lies here

>>94407784
I hated that "born sexy yesterday" meme video for trying to shame me for liking this.

>>94407789
Okay, you know what, you do you and I'll do me. Have your last comment calling me a retard or whatever. I can see neither of us is willing to budge and our viewpoints are so opposite of each other that we will never be able to have any meaningfull discussion.
Goodbye.

File: 48d21b5d-9423-404c-9fa1-e509bb2bfeca.jpg (48KB, 240x320px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 240x320px

>>94407825
Does chobits not objectify women?

>>94405989
I fuck both pictured, what's he issue here?

File: bait.png (17KB, 626x624px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 626x624px

>>94407835

>>94407625
>this angry when you lost the argument
Wow. You know, the statement was that Trump wasn't popular, not that Trump didn't win the presidency. It's called reading comprehension.

>>94407678
>you obviously have no citation so I'm just going to stop responding.

I have not seen one citation against me either. Go on, try and find some.

>>94407798

I know you're joshing, but that is the biggest bullshit copout ''''''''argument''''''' I've ever had to deal with. It's the final refuge of someone who doesn't feel comfortable or confident arguing against a woman/minority, so they resort to effectively saying "well you're just brainwashed and your opinions aren't your own!" Once they claim to know what's in your own head, the discussion is effectively over and they can be written off as sad, pathetic idiots.

>>94407825

Anon, the quotes are there for a reason.

>>94407852
Why would you think this is objectifying, again?

>>94407861
>Trump wasn't popular
Didn't like 47% of the voters vote trump? How was he not popular?

>>94407842
You hated it because it told you the truth, you like that trope because you know no sane girl would date you without any mind-altering substances.

Face the truth, anon.

>>94407833
Anon I was just teasing you, and it's sort of ironic you say don't get defensive, when you need to respond defiantly to someone who gave as much thought to you as your initial reply.

Have a nice day. No hard feelings.

>>94405989
>De-Objectify Women in Comics
Why the fuck would anyone want that?

>>94407885
Literally a show about robot sex dolls. I don't know how anything could be more literally objectifying.

Unless you have some weird definition of objectifying women.

>>94407083
Speaking of He-Man is fans get pissy when they tru to cover him up and give him armor.

>>94407180
>No, because men are drawn to look good and so are women
Glad we agree

>>94407710
Find me exactly one woman who looks like the girl on the right. Shouldn't be that hard, considering that according to you all women look like that.

>>94407887
The statement was that Trump isn't popular, and it's true, he's not popular right now. From the dozens of studies done to the political climate, to even peeping into /pol/, you would know he is getting major flack and has lost initial support. This doesn't mean that he can't come back, it just doesn't mean he's popular.

File: chiwithcherries.jpg (167KB, 911x1300px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 911x1300px

>>94407892
But anon
I am a woman

File: Read A Book.gif (1008KB, 400x235px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 400x235px

>>94407835
>Of most of the media that exists, most of it sexualizes women rather than men.
Not that guy; but are you completely off your rocker? Almost every film has topless male body-builders running around. "Rather than" my ass, guys just talk about it more. Unless we count the endless whining of people that think women need to be covered all the fucking time.

>>94405989
>Idealism vs realism
We do this a lot dont we?
Let artists draw what they want to draw.

>>94407887

47% of the voters isn't 47% of the US population. Eligible voter turnout was at roughly 55%.

>>94407905
So they're not women? And you can't help but shove your ideas in there? I'm reading the wikipedia on it right now and, I quote...

"--it explores the relationship between humans and electronic devices shaped like human beings."

So if the MC is a man and a computer... where is the woman again?

>>94407924

>you would know he is getting major flack and has lost initial support.

Don't roughly 96% of Trump voters still support him? I assume that's what you mean by "initial support".

>>94407846
>Okay, you know what, you do you and I'll do me. Have your last comment calling me a retard or whatever. I can see neither of us is willing to budge and our viewpoints are so opposite of each other that we will never be able to have any meaningfull discussion.
>Goodbye.

I accept your defeat. You conceded the argument gracefully.

>>94407937
There's literally some greentext in the OP that says
>If you choose to draw women sexy, that’s fine! Discussing alternatives and recognizing patterns should not threaten you.

>>94407905

>Hideki's feelings intensify for Chi regardless of her being a persocom and despite his friends' painful experiences involving other persocoms. Chi becomes aware of her purpose through a picture book series called A City with No People which she finds in a bookstore. The books speak about many different things involving human and persocom relationships: persocoms and their convenience as friends and lovers, how there are things that they cannot do and questioning whether a relationship between a persocom and a human is really one-sided.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobits

Seems like a deeper story than, "SEX BOTS OBJECTIFICATION!" than you were disingenuously letting on.

>>94407940
Nowhere, she's been replaced with a sex robot.

I guess so long as she's technically a robot, it's not objectification?

>>94407929

Those are just male power fantasies.

>>94406567
TAKE ME IN YOUR MIGHTY ARMS, SPACE LESBIAN FIGHTER PILOTS

>>94407977
>Nowhere, she's been replaced with a sex robot.
Then no woman is being objectified.

Also, see: >>94407976

>>94407962

Man, that anon at least attempted to meet you halfway and you still acted the child. Grow up.

>>94407964
Which is why I said we instead of they, the article is fine.

File: tumblr_o12c5559cv1rmhoano1_1280.jpg (38KB, 640x798px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x798px

>>94407920
>Find me exactly one woman who looks like the girl on the right. Shouldn't be that hard, considering that according to you all women look like that.

Bruh,

>>94407976
So so long as there is some genuine relationship going on, it's okay to have a female character with huge boobs and skimpy clothing? So long as the woman does anything that is not just being sexually appealing to men it's not objectification? Cool.

>>94407681
Just give up, you're not helping your argument.

>>94407920
Anon that's super easy to do now that men are women.

>>94407959
I'm talking about Independents, who won Trump the election. I personally voted for him out of spite against Hillary. And to be honest, he's better than her currently as he isn't trying to start a new cold war like Congress. That doesn't mean I can't recognize that he isn't popular right now. It's also fairly common to be unpopular after the grace period, though he didn't get one from the media. This is getting off topic though, so I'm going to try and end the political discussion here.

>>94407997
>Man, that anon at least attempted to meet you halfway and you still acted the child. Grow up.

Make me.

>>94408010
>Women who have big breasts and dress to be attractive aren't really women!
Sucks to be real women who do this, then, I guess. You heard it here first, /co/. There are no big breasted women in real life. And definitely none that dress with a high amount of skin showing. No sir.

>>94408004
Alright fine. There were some one-off posts in the beginning/middle parts of the thread that made me question if they had even read the entirety of the OP.

File: Shhhhh.jpg (66KB, 480x564px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 480x564px

>>94408015
>Anon that's super easy to do now that men are women.

Better living through chemistry, I say.

>>94407925
post tits

>>94408010
I mean your argument is destroyed if it's a show about a prostitute/stripper who is continuously shown to degrade herself, and perhaps even like it. But then when at home is filled with depression and self pity from the loneliness that is her life. The point is that sexual themes shouldn't be disapproved of no matter the context, as it's entertainment and theoretically "art". Do you want to censor art? Do you want artists to think a certain way? I would hope not.

>>94406429
I want to give her a dick to hide, if you know what I mean.

>>94408041
I have really no idea what it is you thought I said or what your point is. I didn't say anything that you qouted.

>>94408069
You're going to give her a horse named Richard?

File: mah tits.jpg (156KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1024x768px

>>94408054
Fine, I hope this proves it to you.

File: 1489498955062.jpg (96KB, 792x558px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 792x558px

>>94407547
>false equivalence presented as fact

>>94408063
I have no idea what you're talking about.

>>94408010

It's okay in either case, and isn't objectification unless there is intent to objectify.

>>94408074
It's a satirical response to a non-argument. When you start making arguments again I'll destroy those too.

>>94408046
IMO more average or fit female characters would make the bombshell types look even better.
Every girl looking like a stacked supermodel makes it the norm, which gets boring.

File: 1501858176180.jpg (6KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 150x150px

>>94406084
wait so the one on the right ISNT sexier?

>>94408107
What is objectification to you?

>>94408087
pretty asymmetrical tits there anon.

>>94408126
only if you like men. or are lez.

>>94408095
>So so long as there is some genuine relationship going on, it's okay to have a female character with huge boobs and skimpy clothing? So long as the woman does anything that is not just being sexually appealing to men it's not objectification? Cool.
Your entire post is sarcasm, implying that women shouldn't be objectified just because there is some plot development or character growth. My reply is telling you to stop being angry women can be displayed sexually. Men can also be displayed sexually and it is no problem. I'm telling you to stop censoring artistic visualizations and ideas, which is what you're implying should happen. Is that a good enough spoonfeed, friend?

>>94408126
This is the problem with "desexualizing" women. There's always someone who will find it sexy.

>>94408134
That's our question. The word, "Objectification," has slipped between so many definitions it has lost it's impact and usefulness. It's a non-word thrown out as an accusation for emotional appeal now. It represents nothing of substance.

>>94408107
>unless there is intent to objectify.

You can absolutely not intend to do something and still end up doing it.

The question you should ask is not "is it sexist" but "why should I care if it is sexist or not?" Fuck the whiners, do what you want.

>>94408170
Pointless to blame anyone over it, then.

File: tumblr_n1i8nob4HJ1t898ako3_1280.jpg (47KB, 610x817px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 610x817px

>>94408151

I'll take a sporty babe any day.

>>94408134

The action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.

Of course, objectification in the course of and in service to a broader plot can have meaning beyond "hurr hurr writer want get rocks off".

>>94408006
Take a closer look at OP. OP is considerably bulkier with less muscle and less curves.

The breasts are also a huge difference; your woman has pectorals that still resemble breasts while OP isnt round I the slightest.

>>94408163
But that's okay because it's "rightthink". Wrongthink like scantily clad, feminine beauties is inappropriate and must be deemed offensive and should be censored. Now that we've gotten this problem out of the way, we need to change the modern view of plus sized individuals as the new attractive trait. Back to the 1600's I say.

>>94406372
for you westerners any woman from eastern europe is a man.

>Discussing alternatives and recognizing patterns should not threaten you
And if you refuse because you like your style?

>>94408191
That's much hotter than both girls in OP.

>>94408191
I keep imagining Zayra's voice.
"I will break you."

>>94408191
to each their own. She's nice. But if she was just fit with toned muscles and maybe a bit curvier, I'd find it hard to not to prefer that look.

>>94408184

No, you can always blame somebody for fucking up, particularly if they acknowledge their behavior is negative and they don't do anything to curb that behavior.

>>94406976
>The same physical demanding lifestyles
>Weightlifting.
Weightlifters are notorious for how unbelievably unhealthy they are outside of physical strength. They are not at all an accurate representation of a physically demanding combat life style.

The problem with realism is that practical muscles are really only attractive on average on men. On women they're kind of hard to see because if you're not dieting to make them prominent the fat you're not getting rid of so you won't collapse to a body blow kind of hides it.

Power Girl would look decidedly muscular but probably not what you're imagining in your head.

So don't use realism as an argument.

>>94408199
>The action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.
That sounds very severe though. Is there any examples of that?

>>94408230
Except it isn't negative. It's fiction.

File: 17818267_485385148493597_755646079222939648_n.jpg (138KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1080x1080px

>>94408223
>>94408225
>>94408227

How about slim and lean?

>>94408237

Probably any plot with slavery involved seems like a good starting point.

>>94408249
disgusting

>>94408254
Huh? Example? So Jango unchained objectified black people?

>>94408249
Until the shorts come off, I refuse to believe this is a biological woman.
>>94408053
Take the makeup off and we'll see how feminine he really is. I have to say though, he looks very attractive.

>>94408249
>purple hair
>iPhone
>black finger nails
>wedding ring
One too many red flags. Slim is fine though.

>>94408237
There was that time that queen used her slave as a chair.

File: 17662881_398058523907437_1836770844630581248_n.jpg (137KB, 1080x1350px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1080x1350px

>>94408262
>>94408277

But she's cute! And she's literally a professional wrestler.

If you're going to draw women who aren't sexy, why should I be looking at them?

>>94408274
DISGUSTING. BOYCOTT QUENTIN TARANTINO NOW.

>>94408254
>Probably any plot with slavery involved seems like a good starting point.
>Being this retarded.
"Roots," is a sexist/racist movie now?

>>94408274

Anon, I think you think I'm the OP (or whoever it is is whining about objectification). Where are you going with this line of questioning?

>>94408277
A lot of skinny women look like >>94408249, though.

File: 1170900a1df087c706ed5899cf1e57a1--frank-cho-she-hulk.jpg (29KB, 617x510px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 617x510px

>>94406686
>Cho doesn't want to change
Nice assumption just because he was fucking with Spider-Gwen "creator" for a while. Clean your vagina smegma out please.

>>94408249
that's a guy or a drug addict.

>>94408285
If she's not a tranny, then she an extremely masculine looking woman. I guess I'm not drawn to that stuff.

>>94408214
>And if you refuse because you like your style?
Then just don't join the discussion.

>>94407161
The reason why women are sexy and scantily clad is because that's also a power fantasy, just a power fantasy for men. Guys want to be the sexy/hot/cute exhibitionist because that's not on the table in real life.

>>94405989
why'd they have to go and change her hair?

>>94408316
This specific person looks exactly like the person in my tranny porn stash. I'm also not invested enough to actually image search the picture.

>>94408230
So if you draw a character without trying to objectify them, but the audience objectifies them, its your fault for no making the character unattractive enough?

>>94408286
this.

What the fuck is this obsession with "realism" in fiction? Tell these faggots to stop reading capeshit.

>>94408304

No. Characters within the movie objectify slaves, but the movie itself isn't objectifying them. This isn't difficult to grasp.

>>94408348
bailey?

File: 195034ZN8j7.jpg (44KB, 512x516px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 512x516px

>>94406350
>Aughey
I'd be her Doggie Daddy.

>>94408372
So what's an example of a piece of media objectifying someone? Nothing?

>>94408372
All you need to do is present a movie that does that, I guess.

File: ee5dee595262f9b3b2716681303f910f--transgender-tv.jpg (52KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 480x640px

>>94408277
>Take the makeup off and we'll see how feminine he really is. I have to say though, he looks very attractive.

I couldn't find any candids of Jane Marie.
but here is Domino Presely without makeup.

>>94407924
So those poles that said that Clinton will win with a 80% majority, now are saying the Trumpster is not supported? color me unimpressed. And by the way I have no interest in supporting Trump or Clinton here