ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
Subscriber gallery
This is like a tip jar. Any tip is truly appreciated. And for that, access to the subscriber gallery. Thank you for the tip!
$1/month
Suggested Collections
You Might Like…
Description
This is a parody of this image: [link]
Before anything else, let me explain that I had less effort than you imagine doing this image, it's all done in one layer, for instance. I'm not trying to compete or imitate the original artist's style, this is merely illustrative. I don't care about some anatomy issues of this image, or the -many- lightsource issues in this (although the original image already did have half of those lightsource problems)
This is a statement to all manchildren who think that objectified women in comics are okay. To those that saw nothing wrong with the fact that this image I linked is a COVER of an OFFICIAL COMIC MADE BY MARVEL, to those who see nothing wrong with how Starfire and Harley-Quinn are being portrayed in the new Under the Red Hood comics by DC, to those that think that every time someone complains about something sexist in a comic, movie, or any other media, it's just "feminazi lesbian bitching".
So, since you guys have -no problem- with famous female characters that have been even used as rolemodels for (mostly female) children and teenagers being completely bastardized and objectified just to please men, then I guess you guys won't have any problem with your favorite superheroes being objectified to please an ever-growing female fandom of the comics, right?
This issue doesn't just affect fans of the characters that are being bastardized, this is a way, way bigger issue. Like it or not, we all have responsibilities when we are part of the media, or even out of it. Even simple statements we say to friends or strangers, we are responsible for what we say and partially what things might happen directly because of that, even though nobody wants to take such responsibility for it.
That being said, constantly objectifying women and not ever letting female characters in general stand in such privileged positions as your male characters in your comics says a clear statement to those reading them: That this is normal, and that women aren't as capable or supposed to be taken as serious as men, and that their value is based on how sexually attractive she is. Because those things are taken as normal in comics (and even in many other media forms).
Now, there's a clear difference between objectifying and having sexually attractive characters - the latter happens with a lot of characters for the sake of selling. Wonder Woman fits a beauty stereotype, and so does Superman. Objectifying is when sexualization goes so much further that it is the main reason the character is there. Many male superheroes -are- handsome and attractive, but is their main characteristic how sexy they might be? Are they mostly there to be wet dreams of a female audience? No. But take most female characters and those answers might actually both be "yes".
![[link]](https://www.deviantart.com/users/outgoing?http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20235127/heroesforhirecover.png){kind=link}
Before anything else, let me explain that I had less effort than you imagine doing this image, it's all done in one layer, for instance. I'm not trying to compete or imitate the original artist's style, this is merely illustrative. I don't care about some anatomy issues of this image, or the -many- lightsource issues in this (although the original image already did have half of those lightsource problems)
This is a statement to all manchildren who think that objectified women in comics are okay. To those that saw nothing wrong with the fact that this image I linked is a COVER of an OFFICIAL COMIC MADE BY MARVEL, to those who see nothing wrong with how Starfire and Harley-Quinn are being portrayed in the new Under the Red Hood comics by DC, to those that think that every time someone complains about something sexist in a comic, movie, or any other media, it's just "feminazi lesbian bitching".
So, since you guys have -no problem- with famous female characters that have been even used as rolemodels for (mostly female) children and teenagers being completely bastardized and objectified just to please men, then I guess you guys won't have any problem with your favorite superheroes being objectified to please an ever-growing female fandom of the comics, right?
This issue doesn't just affect fans of the characters that are being bastardized, this is a way, way bigger issue. Like it or not, we all have responsibilities when we are part of the media, or even out of it. Even simple statements we say to friends or strangers, we are responsible for what we say and partially what things might happen directly because of that, even though nobody wants to take such responsibility for it.
That being said, constantly objectifying women and not ever letting female characters in general stand in such privileged positions as your male characters in your comics says a clear statement to those reading them: That this is normal, and that women aren't as capable or supposed to be taken as serious as men, and that their value is based on how sexually attractive she is. Because those things are taken as normal in comics (and even in many other media forms).
Now, there's a clear difference between objectifying and having sexually attractive characters - the latter happens with a lot of characters for the sake of selling. Wonder Woman fits a beauty stereotype, and so does Superman. Objectifying is when sexualization goes so much further that it is the main reason the character is there. Many male superheroes -are- handsome and attractive, but is their main characteristic how sexy they might be? Are they mostly there to be wet dreams of a female audience? No. But take most female characters and those answers might actually both be "yes".
Image size
499x659px 435.9 KB
Mature
© 2011 - 2024 Rokkan-Illidian
Comments22
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
I have zero problem with this. It's a bit Japanese tentacle sex but if you're into that who am i to judge?
It's interesting art and - guess what? - not all men are heterosexual. Some men like pictures of hot objectified men. But this is mainly titilation rather than anything that would be actually arousing. Like a baudy postcard.
This whole objectification thing is so heterocentric in its assumptions. There are women who love having big jiggly titties, tiny waists and big asses on their video game heroines because they think women are hot, and there are men who like rock-hard abs, tight asses and big shoulders on their comic book heroes because they think men are hot.
There is nothing wrong with sexual attraction. Or titilation. There's nothing dirty or foul or sinful about looking at the idealised or exaggerated human body. And i say that as an asexual man who if he had any control over his sexuality would choose to be polysexual because, well, why limit yourself to pleasure with less than half the population?
Read some neuroscience and psychology. Men are turned on by physical beauty because our sexuality is connected on a physical and psychological level. Women's generally lacks a connection between physical arousal and psychological attraction, which is why most women prefer erotica (mental arousal) over pornography (physical arousal) (and why women are physically aroused by watching bonobos having sex because their brain isn't taking a conscious part). But because male sexuality is connected, we are really turned on by consensual sex: the reciprocation of sexual pleasure - the knowledge that our partner is enjoying it as much as us - is what we really enjoy. All my straight male friends say there is no bigger turn off than a passive object. They would rather not have sex than have sex with someone not enjoying it.
Those who engage in non-consensual sex acts are - if you read the criminology literature - more likely to have suffered sexual abuse as children and to have internalised that damaged sexuality into their own as a form of compulsion.
When men watch porn, they spend half the time watching the face(s) of the participants to read signs of enjoyment. Read any art manual and the tricks to making an image of a woman alluring mostly involve the eyes. Not the body but the windows of the soul.
This is far more complicated for men than simple objectification. It's simultaneously subjectifying the sexual object by empathising with their emotional and psychological state and reciprocating that empathy.
Perhaps it has something to do with men being starved of affection from an early age so we long for beauty and reciprocation or with women being over-coddled so they never have to recognise the power of their own agency. Because we're stuck on a "masculinity bad femininity good" narrative that short-circuits deeper self-analysis of our culture and ourselves as individuals, chances are we'll never find the answers or the solutions...
It's interesting art and - guess what? - not all men are heterosexual. Some men like pictures of hot objectified men. But this is mainly titilation rather than anything that would be actually arousing. Like a baudy postcard.
This whole objectification thing is so heterocentric in its assumptions. There are women who love having big jiggly titties, tiny waists and big asses on their video game heroines because they think women are hot, and there are men who like rock-hard abs, tight asses and big shoulders on their comic book heroes because they think men are hot.
There is nothing wrong with sexual attraction. Or titilation. There's nothing dirty or foul or sinful about looking at the idealised or exaggerated human body. And i say that as an asexual man who if he had any control over his sexuality would choose to be polysexual because, well, why limit yourself to pleasure with less than half the population?
Read some neuroscience and psychology. Men are turned on by physical beauty because our sexuality is connected on a physical and psychological level. Women's generally lacks a connection between physical arousal and psychological attraction, which is why most women prefer erotica (mental arousal) over pornography (physical arousal) (and why women are physically aroused by watching bonobos having sex because their brain isn't taking a conscious part). But because male sexuality is connected, we are really turned on by consensual sex: the reciprocation of sexual pleasure - the knowledge that our partner is enjoying it as much as us - is what we really enjoy. All my straight male friends say there is no bigger turn off than a passive object. They would rather not have sex than have sex with someone not enjoying it.
Those who engage in non-consensual sex acts are - if you read the criminology literature - more likely to have suffered sexual abuse as children and to have internalised that damaged sexuality into their own as a form of compulsion.
When men watch porn, they spend half the time watching the face(s) of the participants to read signs of enjoyment. Read any art manual and the tricks to making an image of a woman alluring mostly involve the eyes. Not the body but the windows of the soul.
This is far more complicated for men than simple objectification. It's simultaneously subjectifying the sexual object by empathising with their emotional and psychological state and reciprocating that empathy.
Perhaps it has something to do with men being starved of affection from an early age so we long for beauty and reciprocation or with women being over-coddled so they never have to recognise the power of their own agency. Because we're stuck on a "masculinity bad femininity good" narrative that short-circuits deeper self-analysis of our culture and ourselves as individuals, chances are we'll never find the answers or the solutions...