These kind representations do cause body image problems in men. Some more conscious toy manufacturers did redesign their action figures to look more like actual body builders, even if that is still not how soldiers and other combatants look like in real life (for the most part at least). Some actors dehydrate themselves for shirtless scenes.
They take steroids before filming these movies. It is no secret. You can't achieve that in a few months, that's 100% steroids backed by a team of experts who are giving them the best products in the exact doses they need.
And it absolutely slays me when they refer to Chris Pratt as having a "dad bod" lol
Chris Pratt used to be well known for never using a spit bucket. His body and career have changed a lot.
What is a spot bucket?
I think they are referring to a spit bucket which is used for the actor to spit out food they're pretending to eat between takes
Whoops, yeah I fat fingered it. These days I'm too used to autocorrect catching my mistakes!
I have been told I have a dad bod and it does not look like Starlord. It does look like Andy Dwyer at his fattest, lol
It's noticable watching old movies and TV that when the sex symbol takes off their shirt they have a well built but normal body. The modern crustacean look is rather bizarre.
modern crustacean look
Larry the Lobster?
Old like what? Rocky 4?
Like 007 Sean Connery
Bruce Willis in Die Hard is similar, like you can tell he's in good shape but he still looks like a normal person.
60s James Bond had a dad bod.
this comment section reads like a twitter exchange and it's fucking mind numbing
I guess the masses are indeed immigrating from Reddit.
Well it is in the shitpost fed
The internet is a battleground of ideas.
Yikes the anti-feminist takes in this thread lol
Men do not experience body policing in even remotely similar ways to women. If that fact offends you you probably don't actually understand how misogyny functions.
The standard of “very good body” is higher for women, sure, but the standard of “good enough body” for women is much, much lower than the one for men.
The first one is useful if you want to be an actor or model, the second if you want to find a partner for life. Guess which of the two is more relevant for the average person.
Your body affects your life in many more ways when you're a woman. My body affects my employment, it affects me whenever I go anywhere in public, it affects my relationships with friends with family and with coworkers. It's open season to make comments about my body, regardless of if I've got a "very good body" or not. Harassment of women is the norm. It's not attached to perceived attractiveness, at least not in that only those deemed very attractive suffer sexual harassment and assault. We all suffer in this, and over a lifetime starting as a literal child it totally dehumanizes you. Being lesser is a woman's place, because all society will ever focus on is our bodies and how they relate to men. We don't even get to be people, just game pieces surrounding men only relevant in whatever use we have to them. Misogyny is a cornerstone of our society itself. It's baked into our politics, our tradition, our history, our legal system, our families, It's everywhere. And thats why comparing the way men and women experience body standards and policing doesn't work. The scale isn't even close to the same, nor is the severity.
Being lesser is a woman’s place, because all society will ever focus on is our bodies and how they relate to men. We don’t even get to be people, just game pieces surrounding men only relevant in whatever use we have to them.
Ok, now this is just plain overdramatizing. We’re not in the 19th century anymore, on paper women have every right men have in the whole first world, plenty of corporations are built with the main purpose of providing pleasant experiences to women and a lot of women have been in very high positions of power. Women ARE people just as much as men according to the huge majority of people, and those who don’t think so are usually unlikeable by men and women alike.
Misogyny is very much an issue in the modern society because its roots were in misogyny and you don’t change thousands of years in a century, but we’re moving very fast. I can get that your physical appearance can make a difference in whether you get hired in some companies (and if it does, you probably dodged a bullet), but to say that in modern society women “don’t get to be people” is insulting to all the progress humanity has done.
I've lived it myself, listen to women and read the studies and surveys on these things. On paper means nothing, especially when women are unequal in ways the law does not even account for. In my hometown nearly half of all women have been sexually assaulted. I rarely meet a woman who hasn't experienced any sexual harassment or assault, many experience it before they're even adults. Girls and women are still suffering, in many ways things have barely changed at all. Yes we can work jobs now, yes we can vote. But even people who think it's wrong continue to perpetuate misogyny anyway, misogyny exists everywhere in everyone across society. We all get indoctrinated as children into it, and it takes a lot to deconstruct all the propaganda we're fed.
Society has made some progress, but honestly not very much. Women don't even have human rights in the US. In terms of culture, in terms of actual people and their actual beliefs, we have actually changed very little in the last 50 years. People have always hated women and that has not changed as much as you seem to think it has. Again, I'd encourage you to listen to the stories of women when they talk about the way society continues to discriminate against them. I'd encourage you to frequent women's forums online and read what we talk about and what horrifying realities we live in.
In terms of culture, in terms of actual people and their actual beliefs, we have actually changed very little in the last 50 years.
We’ve changed “very little” since the time of these ads? When there were still places in Europe where women couldn’t vote? When marry-yor-rapist laws were still common? In those years where we had the first female UK prime minister, the first female German chancellor, the first female US vice president and so on? Come on.
Sexual harassment is very much a problem in modern society, and way too many misogynists still exist, but to say that women are still “not people” and that we’re not moving forward in recent years is definitely an exaggeration. Women from 50 years ago probably wouldn’t believe it if you told them all the progress we’ve made in the meantime.
The dominant structure of the patriarchy has never changed. Women still earn less, disproportionately suffer sexual and physical violence, still face constant policing of our bodies, still face patriarchal attitudes in men and our friends and our families, were still expected to have children and marry men and we face prejudice and discrimination if we are unwed and have no children. This entire conversation has been principally about American power structures, but similar ones exist around the world. Women can't even get safe health care in America. Women are legally not afforded the same rights as men in America, not that the legal system is the sole metric by which we measure inequality. We are still expected to be homemakers, still face sexual harassment in our homes in our workplaces in education and from our friends. We still get assaulted by men at staggeringly under reported rates. The ruling class is almost entirely men. The ruling class is almost entirely patriarchal. Rapists still barely suffer any punishment for their crimes, not even 10% of rapists ever see any kind of consequences for their actions.
You are vastly overestimating how much society has changed. 50 years ago we had no right to safe health care, and once again today we don't. 50 years ago our mother's were being beaten and sexually assaulted by their partners at sickening rates, and still we are today. 50 years ago women were paid less than men, and so we are today. I could go on. Nominally blatant hatred towards women is less tolerable in today's media, but its still tolerated and present in a lot of it. Our actual lives, our actual experiences, our suffering at the hands of misogyny has changed very little from 50 years ago. I mentioned in another comment, but I briefly worked with kids at a youth center. And I can say with certainty that the trend isn't even better with their generation. Systemic change was always required to solve systemic issues, and we have never even come close to systemic change with regards to misogyny. That would mean deconstructing one of the cornerstones of American society and culture, and you've seen how any attacks on American society or culture are perceived. Our concerns are always dismissed and our proposal for change always falls on deaf ears by those who see no problem with our suffering.
So just because crimes against women still occur we haven’t improved at all? It’s not an improvement until there is absolutely zero crimes being committed against women?
Again, you can’t expect that to happen in a century. Crimes against women have been taken much more seriously in recent years, hell, some of them weren’t even considered crimes 50 years ago. Prejudices and patriarchal attitude has also been getting less and less intense, as people, both male and female, realized they’re generally harmful to everyone. Things have gotten better, are getting better and hopefully will get even better as more and more “relics of the past” leave this world and newer generations take over.
When women are actively losing rights i don't see how you could possibly think that inequality against women is getting better. You're just dismissing change by saying women must continue to suffer the effects of misogyny until some undetermined point in the future when all will naturally resolve itself. Misogyny has existed in many forms throughout all of human history. Now is the time when women are able to best advocate for themselves. We are not equal and it has only improved in terms of the social acceptability of voicing outright hatred towards women. This is a good thing, and I'm not saying it isn't. It is not enough. It is nowhere near enough. Women are so burdened by misogyny that we can never be equal unless we are actively counteracting misogyny wherever it exists.
The reality is inequality against women has not improved nearly as much as you seem to think. I am a woman, I have first hand experience of it. If you see the improvement of inequality against women as a good then I have no idea why were having this conversation. You should be able to completely understand the way women suffer systemic institutional violence and discrimination in a way that men as a class do not. We can never even scratch the surface of doing something about it if every time we talk about it we're told that we are exaggerating and lying, or worse that we're attacking men.
Misogyny which is a systemic issue requires systemic solutions. Simply making it socially unacceptable to outright advocate explicit violence and hatred against women does not address the many other ways that women suffer from misogyny. But this is all moot, as we don't even legally have the same rights as of now. So it doesn't matter, women are objectively suffering because of misogyny from even the state and it's violence in much the same ways we are in the 1970s. In many ways today's landscape looks even bleaker than it did then, with states and politicians actively taking away more women's rights.
What rights are you losing? I can only think of the whole abortion issue in the US and it’s pretty clear people are already sick and tired of it and it’s not going to last for long, unless they pull some shenanigans. In the meantime I feel very bad for women who saw or will see denied an abortion request as that’s something that can straight-up ruin your life, but unfortunately as long as America is so reliant on religion you can’t expect to see decisions that make sense. Again, time will definitely help as newer generations are overwhelmingly irreligious and in support of abortion.
And no, I’m not dismissing change. Actually we haven’t even talked about change at all. The main focus of this discussion has been more of an oppression olympics kind of one. So in case I missed it, what is your suggestion for an actual, systemic solution that will solve sexism? Because I really can’t think of one that isn’t “teach kids not to be sexist and hope it trickles down as time goes on”.
I mean the right to bodily autonomy and access to safe health care has been taken away for women. Its already been a year, I dont know how you can consider that not lasting long. There's an entire party of politicians in America and in a lot of other closely related countries that is openly against the rights of women. In Texas and Florida there are pushes to have women's rights to custody and divorce changed. By the parties currently ruling those states. But in any case, what's written in law and what happens are not the same and discrimination against women exists even in ways the law says are illegal.
Theres the anti feminist "oppression olympics" concept again. A systemic solution to misogyny would be to actively undo the systemic inequalities against women. Make misogyny unacceptable at any level of society, someone who is misogynistic should not be allowed to exist socially in any context whatsoever. It should be met with active resistance in every place it exists. Women should be paid equally, and the government should be interfering in business hiring practices and wage disputes to ensure that women are at all levels being paid equally. Meritocracy isn't real, and women should be afforded equal political and social power in all contexts. That means the dissolution of all forms of patriarchal propaganda, the dissolution of the institution of the nuclear family, the dissolution of sex based discrimination in all forms of education housing and employment, a completely rebuilt justice system that appropriately investigates every single incidence of sexual harassment sexual assault and rape and ensures that punishment is extremely severe.
And even that wouldn't totally resolve it in all its forms, since capital is the primary vehicle for the ruling class to use power. Capitalism upholds patriarchy, and income inequality would need to be addressed to make women equal in society.
Make misogyny unacceptable at any level of society, someone who is misogynistic should not be allowed to exist socially in any context whatsoever. It should be met with active resistance in every place it exists.
Uh, it is unacceptable and met with resistance in the great majority of the first world? We can’t really do any more than that, you want a law to be able to legally murder someone on the basis of a misogynistic affirmation?
Women should be paid equally, and the government should be interfering in business hiring practices and wage disputes to ensure that women are at all levels being paid equally. Meritocracy isn’t real, and women should be afforded equal political and social power in all contexts.
Great, how do you enforce that when not even all white men are paid equally? People are always going to have biases. We can make laws for public employment and impose ranges for private ones, but there’s never going to be a list exhaustive enough so that every person doing a job is retributed the same way.
That means the dissolution of all forms of patriarchal propaganda, the dissolution of the institution of the nuclear family, the dissolution of sex based discrimination in all forms of education housing and employment
And this is what is constantly trying to be done (well, except in half of post-2016 USA but that’s a different issue). Nuclear family is in an “involuntary” constant decline with the majority group of people being “married without children” in a 2000 statistic. I don’t really remember hearing about any blatantly patriarchal propaganda or systemic sex-based discriminations in education, housing or employment in recent times and I’m pretty sure the little that still does exist is in a shrinking minority, feel free to prove me wrong.
a completely rebuilt justice system that appropriately investigates every single incidence of sexual harassment sexual assault and rape and ensures that punishment is extremely severe.
This is, supposedly, what’s in place now, but the fact that it isn’t working doesn’t mean it’s intentional. In general, sexual crimes are among the least likely to leave physical, indisputable proof, and it is therefore very hard for judges to prosecute them effectively. The fact that yes, the justice system is a very old institution and has definitely bias behind it is undeniable, but while I hope it gets “rebuilt” as well, I don’t think it’s going to change much (unless you fill it with people that have a bias towards males, which would just be changing the target of the problem).
This is very exaggerated
How much time would you say you dedicate to investigating men's issues vs women's issues?
As a woman and my friend group being mostly women anything that affects women I hear about. I have listened plenty of times to men talking about the problems they face. I'm aware of the challenges imposed on men by society, many of which are directly related to and affected by misogyny and toxic masculinity. I'm not a sociology researcher by any means, I see studies I come across and listen to people talk about problems they face. I have my own personal experiences with men and those of my friends family and partners past and present.
I don't take issue with discussion of men's issues, thats objectively good. It does not have to be to the dismissal of misogyny though.
As a woman and my friend group being mostly women anything that affects women I hear about. I have listened plenty of times to men talking about the problems they face.
Could you put a number on it? Like... for every 10 studies/articles on women's issues you read, how many men's issues studies would you be reading? 10 to 10? 10 to 5? 10 to 2?
Or let's say you've spent idk... 200 hours looking into women's issues, talking to women, etc... How many hours have you listened to men, or researched their issues? 200:200, 200:100, 200:50? (not counting debates) Your best ballpark.
Like how many men's forums are you subscribed to?
I cannot adequately answer that question, and its complicated by many studies I've read being surveys of both men and women. I also am a woman, so I have my own first hand experiences of misogyny.
I'm subscribed to forums that are about things that affect both men and women, but as I have less to contribute in the way of advice and assistance for men I do not subscribe specifically to any of them. Doesn't mean I don't see any of their content however.
You should definitely take the leap! If you can approach male spaces without bias you'd gain deeper perspective into these issues.
I am aware of what issues affect men. I am aware of social pressures on men. I am also aware of the ways that men as a class have privilege and how they both benefit from and suffer because of misogyny.
You are in quite a position to be saying that I need a deeper perspective on gender issues.
I am aware of what issues affect men.
I don't see how you can make that claim at all when you don't even read male forums, much less can't even put a vague number on your own exposure.
This assumes women on average are as interest in "just sex" as men are. I don't care for men thinking my body is just good enough for sex.
I mean, in a relationship, what else do you need a body for? The main thing that keeps two people interested in each other is the personality, as long as the bodies are “good enough” to sexually stimulate your partner there’s not much more they’re needed for. Hell, for some that isn’t even a requirement.
But it doesn't make sense to complain about women supposedly having higher standards when men and women seem to have, on average, different expectations towards a relationship? I would rather be alone than being with a person who just finds my body good enough. For many men this seems to be different.
I always thought the “different expectations” prejudice about relationships was more about average men wanting a “body to fuck” that’s also a pleasant person and average women wanting a pleasant person that’s also a “body to fuck” (you know, the old adage about push-up bras and lies).
I don’t know if it’s also about how much is your body attractive to your partner, to me it seems like an unnecessary requirement and kind of “objectifying yourself”. Like, if a person is in love with your personality and finds your body simply “attractive”, is that not good enough for a relationship to you? That situation is like hitting a jackpot for most men I know.
It is objectifying towards yourself. And it stems from the fact that in media and our society in general women are valued by their looks. There are very few examples for likeable female characters, for example, who aren't also beautiful and young. It's a complex issues and that's why it is especially questionable to produce such a meme.
It is objectifying towards yourself.
Then why would you do that? If you recognize it’s not right to expect that, why would you specifically want a partner that absolutely loves your body?
There are very few examples for likeable female characters, for example, who aren’t also beautiful and young.
Because, as we’ve been saying, most characters (whether males or females) in fiction are beautiful. There’s also very few examples of likeable male characters that aren’t also beautiful.
You might have a point with the age but I’d attribute that to historical Hollywood stars being mostly male, as more popular actresses get old we’ll definitely see more likeable old women.
You would do that because that's how you are socialised as a woman growing up. Your value is your youth and how beautiful you are. That's it.
It is not easy to just rid yourself from socialising. As a man this can be hard to get when it's about beauty standards because beauty standards imposed onto men are not even close as restrictive as those imposed onto women.
There are many examples for unattractive, funny looking, old, chubby, etc. male characters in media. For female characters that's the exception.
I don’t know, I really don’t get the reasoning. I can understand being conditioned so that your subconscious gives a higher importance to your body than what it should be, and that can be hard to completely get rid of, but you consciously typed “I would rather be alone than being with a person who just finds my body good enough”. That doesn’t seem like something egodystonic you’re actively trying to fight.
And as for representation in media, are all those funny looking/chubby characters actual, three-dimensional characters or are they just the comic relief whose main point of their personality is “he’s a nerd/fat/ugly”? Because for fat kids that’s exactly the opposite of body positivity, and the only reason why there’s so many males and little females in that trope is because making fun of a woman for her appearance is generally something frowned upon (meanwhile for men it’s totally ok, at least until recently)
Why would I fight it though? I don’t see it as a necessity to have a romantic relationship with someone.
There are plenty of examples where the male character is not attractive and is also not made fun of.
Because you said it’s objectifying yourself? And that’s not a good thing? And saying you’re not that interested in romance is very different from “I would rather be alone than being with a person who just finds my body good enough“. That means you’re interested, as long as the other person finds your body very attractive.
Again, define “not attractive”. Because ugly and fat characters are almost always made fun of. If “not ugly, but not gorgeous” characters count as “not attractive” I can find a lot of female ones too.
Unfortunately there are too many "open-minded" and "open-minded"-adjacent people who have huge blindspots to their own hypocrisy and philosophical paradoxes. I've met so many IRL and net-folk who are lefty "activists" who are huge fucking racists and douchebag misogynists. Extinction Rebellion for example is full of them. I get a bad taste in my mouth whenever I remember certain interactions with them.
I think that might be related to whether someone sees people as good and bad, or as being capable of doing good and bad things.
From how I see it, classifying people as just good and bad is very reductive in that you assume that bad people do bad things with bad intentions and the opposite for good people. That means that if you're certain that you're a good person, you don't need to question your own actions or motives because you can't do bad.
If you however see people as capable of making good or bad actions with good or bad intentions, you should realize that people you see as good can do bad things and vice versa. That means you should always examine your own motivations and your own decisions to make sure you're doing the right things for the right reasons.
I personally believe this is why it is so common among certain activist groups to harbor some absolutely atrocious beliefs that seem contrary to what they're working for.
That makes a lot of sense. I guess it's always a matter of education in the home and otherwise. Critical thinking and self-analysis seem to be difficult to engender when there's a culture of accepted vertical hierarchy. I don't think it's wrong to say capitalist philosophical leanings create emotionally and philiosophically lazy individuals. The true laziness is always in the opposite direction of the espoused morals of work culture.
Man, fuck extinction rebellion and their transphobic religious prosthelytising
They're like the Catholic Church of environmental activism.
And both cis men and cis women don't experience body policing in even remotely similar ways to nonbinary people. Most women don't need a letter from a psychiatrist costing thousands of dollars to get permission to have a body they can enjoy.
Yes, I am aware of transphobia and discrimination against nonbinary people.
I know you are, but there's plenty of gibletheads in this thread who ought to be told it
Prehensile penis is the unachievable body standard for the dense folk out there
Well it’s not clearly a penis and OP’s link is dead so I think it’s pretty easy to miss if you haven’t watched the show.
Then again, if you haven't watched the show, you haven't truly lived.
points at science project that works out 20 hours a day while taking a cocktail of steroids and hormones from a panel of doctors
This is what a normal man should look like.
Wonder what steroids they're using
And don't forget the intentional dehydration for topless scenes. Hugh Jackman has been very open about that.
Same technique used by body builders I assume during competition.
How does that work?
they kinda gradually stop drinking over 2-3 days, often on the day of the shoot they don't drink anything, it makes your skin kinda thinner and it helps make your muscles more "ripped"
Oof, that sounds seriously unhealthy. No food for a couple days, sure, most humans can handle that no problem. But no water? Damn.
oh it's very unhealthy, stresses your kidneys, heart, causee just the worst headaches
Everyone at a bodybuilding competition does this as well. It certainly doesn't seem good.
It is unhealthy and as far as I can tell no actor is a fan of it
The actor of Green Arrow talked about. The Green Arrow series has some really dedicated scenes.
A healthy, normal-weight adult can fast safely for a week, after that you should get a doctor involved to take blood levels to be on the safe side and take whatever micro-nutrients you get prescribed. The longest fast ever was done by Angus Barbieri, 382 days, on a diet of coffee, tea, sparkling water and supplements (as per doctor's order). He was an absolute unit going in normal weight people don't last that long.
Going without water will be deadly in three days or less, no exceptions. Doing it in a climate where you're not sweating helps but ultimately you have metabolic products to flush out of your system which won't work without water intake. The body is going to allow poisoning itself before it shuts down, that's the kind of situation where no matter what you intend to do, at some point you're going to catch a rabbit with your bare hands, rip of its head, and drink the blood.
Oh, and while I'm at it: Distilled water is safe to drink. Yes, it's easier to get water poisoning with distilled water as opposed to ordinary but either is an achievement and requires fasting as well at not giving in to that sudden urge to murder your salt shaker. We get the overwhelming majority of our minerals from food, not drinks.
The good ones, under doctor supervision. If youre someone who doesnt think they're on gear you're a sweet summer child of the most innocence.
Mostly testosterone for building the muscle base probably, then potentially something like anavar (oral oxandrolone) for a few weeks before filming the shirtless scenes, as orals make you temporarily blow up with water and glycogen. Could be some use of diuretics before filming, too - they definitely use water manipulation/restriction to get that ultra-lean look on the day. I've only included drugs you could feasibly get from the doctor, rather than anything too exotic. I do, however, guarantee they all used a significant amount of steroids in addition to the extremely strict diet and training they are very keen to talk about.
My favorite part about all that work is that it's undone literally that same night, when they eat and drink like a normal person.
The first of the second row, Viagra
Trueee 😂
When asked what character i wanted to be, i have always said tentacle monster. The tentacle monster gets all the hot chics.
I thought it was the prehensile penis from The Boys.
And there's a sentence I never expected to write out.
It is. That was the origin on of this meme. It was in TheBoys subreddit specifically as a joke about the prehensile penis.
That's not a regular, gym going tentacle - it had to take steroids to reach that level of physique. Totally unrealistic expectations for us noodles here.
Ugly people don't sell. I'm shit outta luck
Did anyone ever do a Love sausage cosplay? Would be sick
OP, the link in your post is dead, I think a lot more people are going to miss it lol
They don't put men like this in movies for women.
Oh yeah, remember that box office failure that no one talked about? Magic Mike? I hope Channing Tatum's ego has recovered.
How do you know that? What makes you say that? Does it even matter why they're put into movies?
As far as I understand it the image posted does not claim that these bodies are put into movies for women. Personally I would argue that unrealistic bodies are put there for both genders, but perhaps more so for the opposite sex. However, looking at the posted image neutrally and without reading anything into it that's not there, to the main idea behind the image is to point out the fact that not not only women but also men are depicted unrealistically more often than not. Or at the very least statistically above average.
Some women might lust over this, but that's not why they are put there. They are the male power fantasy and are added for the benefit of the guys that watch it.
There's a reason most straight women find Loki more attractive than Thor and I've seen guys completely blindsided by that because they see everything through the male gaze.
You're not right. What's the proof behind most women finding loki more attractive? Typical terminally online take, so predictable.
As a woman who has mostly straight friends.... I don't know a single other woman that finds Hemsworth more attractive than Hiddleston. And most women I know would also say Andy Samberg is very attractive. I don't know many men who would admit that Samberg is attractive.
Almost universally bodies in media are designed to appeal to men first and women second. There are exceptions, yes, but they are just exceptions.
I don’t know many men who would admit that Samberg is attractive
Those men haven't watched Popstar.
Tell me you've never talked to a woman without telling me you've never talked to a woman...
Ok, so I'm confused about what's being implied here. Is it that media makers don't care about making things sexually appealing to straight women? If there's profit in it, why wouldn't they?
Seems to me that women in general tend to base less of their attraction on visual or physical cues than men do. But what I don't understand is why there's an air of moral superiority around the ways that women judge attractiveness and a condemnation of the way that men judge attractiveness. Non-physical traits might be a better basis for a relationship, but we're not talking about a relationship. We're talking about fictional media.
If women responded to sex appeal in the same way that men do, I see no reason why media makers wouldn't include it. In fact, I would argue in media targeted primarily at women, they do tend to portray men with both physical and non-physical traits that appeal to women. But the fact that superhero physiques might be included mainly to appeal to men in no way counters the argument that it can lead to body-image issues.
Is nobody going to comment on the bottom ~right~ left picture 😂
You mean the bottom left one right?
Yeah, sorry
Beauty standards for women focus on what men find attractive. Beauty standards for men also focus on what men find attractive.
As far as I know there’s not much difference in beauty canons between women and gay men or men and lesbians. So it’s not really saying much.
That's not true at all. I'm a nonbinary femme attracted to nonbinary femmes, and I have a similar sense of beauty to many lesbians, when it comes to pretty women. When I see an image of a woman that's framed to appeal to male sexuality, I feel a sense of revulsion. Sapphic porn is way more respectful, more humanising, and way more hot to myself and lesbians than porn made for straight men.
Women have similar taste in men to gay men, because both are sexually attracted to men. When I say beauty standards for men focus on what men find attractive, I'm talking about the average man. A straight one. Movie stars like The Rock appeal to a straight male power fantasy, rather than to sexual desire. Beauty standards for women are about sex. Beauty standards for men are about power.
Can I get a non amp link or can you make your post a bit more specific so I don't have to visit some adhole?
The link would be to The Sun anyway, so amp or not, you'd be better off without it tbh..
Why can't you talk about this issue without a side jab at the issues women face?
What side jab? Showing men can face similar issues is a side jab?
Why can't things be compared?
What side jab
The first lines of the meme. Explain to me what else they are supposed to mean?
I don't take it to be criticising women's issues, but rather the bias.
What bias?
Unfortunately, due to the toxic discussions that have taken place on this post I've decided to lock the comments. Sorry
So stupid
All of these are in superhero movies, not exactly a representative sample of male movie bods.
Except for the fact that basically every leading man who takes his shirt off in 99% of mainstream movies have physiques much closer to this than those of most regular people.
How many women in movies with regular bodies are shown?
Very few as well. I was addressing the unrealistic male bodies, not dismissing the fact that the same problem exists (arguably to a much worse degree) with regards to women like the OP seems to do.
But OP was very likely referring to the fact that women discuss how female bodies are depicted unrealistically in almost every piece of media. The meme makes fun of women talking about that issue, pretending that men are also depicted unrealistically. That's the whole punch line.
Yeah I know, that's why I made sure to point out that I was NOT doing that. No matter the OP, you can and should acknowledge both rather than pretend that they're mutually exclusive.
OP was referring to a guy choking another guy with his 50ft dick.
It's almost like humans in general prefer looking at people who appear healthy and conventionally attractive.
The fact that so many people have let themselves become fat and slovenly, doesn't really impact our evolutionary desire to mate with healthy specimens...
And being fit generally demostrates reproductive readiness.
These bodies are exemplary of course,but looking closer to that compared to the fupas and gunts waddling around bitching and moaning isn't that difficult. Put the fork down and take a walk.
These kind representations do cause body image problems in men. Some more conscious toy manufacturers did redesign their action figures to look more like actual body builders, even if that is still not how soldiers and other combatants look like in real life (for the most part at least). Some actors dehydrate themselves for shirtless scenes.
They take steroids before filming these movies. It is no secret. You can't achieve that in a few months, that's 100% steroids backed by a team of experts who are giving them the best products in the exact doses they need.
And it absolutely slays me when they refer to Chris Pratt as having a "dad bod" lol
Chris Pratt used to be well known for never using a spit bucket. His body and career have changed a lot.
What is a spot bucket?
I think they are referring to a spit bucket which is used for the actor to spit out food they're pretending to eat between takes
Whoops, yeah I fat fingered it. These days I'm too used to autocorrect catching my mistakes!
I have been told I have a dad bod and it does not look like Starlord. It does look like Andy Dwyer at his fattest, lol
It's noticable watching old movies and TV that when the sex symbol takes off their shirt they have a well built but normal body. The modern crustacean look is rather bizarre.
Larry the Lobster?
Old like what? Rocky 4?
Like 007 Sean Connery
Bruce Willis in Die Hard is similar, like you can tell he's in good shape but he still looks like a normal person.
60s James Bond had a dad bod.
this comment section reads like a twitter exchange and it's fucking mind numbing
I guess the masses are indeed immigrating from Reddit.
Well it is in the shitpost fed
The internet is a battleground of ideas.
Yikes the anti-feminist takes in this thread lol
Men do not experience body policing in even remotely similar ways to women. If that fact offends you you probably don't actually understand how misogyny functions.
The standard of “very good body” is higher for women, sure, but the standard of “good enough body” for women is much, much lower than the one for men.
The first one is useful if you want to be an actor or model, the second if you want to find a partner for life. Guess which of the two is more relevant for the average person.
Your body affects your life in many more ways when you're a woman. My body affects my employment, it affects me whenever I go anywhere in public, it affects my relationships with friends with family and with coworkers. It's open season to make comments about my body, regardless of if I've got a "very good body" or not. Harassment of women is the norm. It's not attached to perceived attractiveness, at least not in that only those deemed very attractive suffer sexual harassment and assault. We all suffer in this, and over a lifetime starting as a literal child it totally dehumanizes you. Being lesser is a woman's place, because all society will ever focus on is our bodies and how they relate to men. We don't even get to be people, just game pieces surrounding men only relevant in whatever use we have to them. Misogyny is a cornerstone of our society itself. It's baked into our politics, our tradition, our history, our legal system, our families, It's everywhere. And thats why comparing the way men and women experience body standards and policing doesn't work. The scale isn't even close to the same, nor is the severity.
Ok, now this is just plain overdramatizing. We’re not in the 19th century anymore, on paper women have every right men have in the whole first world, plenty of corporations are built with the main purpose of providing pleasant experiences to women and a lot of women have been in very high positions of power. Women ARE people just as much as men according to the huge majority of people, and those who don’t think so are usually unlikeable by men and women alike.
Misogyny is very much an issue in the modern society because its roots were in misogyny and you don’t change thousands of years in a century, but we’re moving very fast. I can get that your physical appearance can make a difference in whether you get hired in some companies (and if it does, you probably dodged a bullet), but to say that in modern society women “don’t get to be people” is insulting to all the progress humanity has done.
I've lived it myself, listen to women and read the studies and surveys on these things. On paper means nothing, especially when women are unequal in ways the law does not even account for. In my hometown nearly half of all women have been sexually assaulted. I rarely meet a woman who hasn't experienced any sexual harassment or assault, many experience it before they're even adults. Girls and women are still suffering, in many ways things have barely changed at all. Yes we can work jobs now, yes we can vote. But even people who think it's wrong continue to perpetuate misogyny anyway, misogyny exists everywhere in everyone across society. We all get indoctrinated as children into it, and it takes a lot to deconstruct all the propaganda we're fed.
Society has made some progress, but honestly not very much. Women don't even have human rights in the US. In terms of culture, in terms of actual people and their actual beliefs, we have actually changed very little in the last 50 years. People have always hated women and that has not changed as much as you seem to think it has. Again, I'd encourage you to listen to the stories of women when they talk about the way society continues to discriminate against them. I'd encourage you to frequent women's forums online and read what we talk about and what horrifying realities we live in.
We’ve changed “very little” since the time of these ads? When there were still places in Europe where women couldn’t vote? When marry-yor-rapist laws were still common? In those years where we had the first female UK prime minister, the first female German chancellor, the first female US vice president and so on? Come on.
Sexual harassment is very much a problem in modern society, and way too many misogynists still exist, but to say that women are still “not people” and that we’re not moving forward in recent years is definitely an exaggeration. Women from 50 years ago probably wouldn’t believe it if you told them all the progress we’ve made in the meantime.
The dominant structure of the patriarchy has never changed. Women still earn less, disproportionately suffer sexual and physical violence, still face constant policing of our bodies, still face patriarchal attitudes in men and our friends and our families, were still expected to have children and marry men and we face prejudice and discrimination if we are unwed and have no children. This entire conversation has been principally about American power structures, but similar ones exist around the world. Women can't even get safe health care in America. Women are legally not afforded the same rights as men in America, not that the legal system is the sole metric by which we measure inequality. We are still expected to be homemakers, still face sexual harassment in our homes in our workplaces in education and from our friends. We still get assaulted by men at staggeringly under reported rates. The ruling class is almost entirely men. The ruling class is almost entirely patriarchal. Rapists still barely suffer any punishment for their crimes, not even 10% of rapists ever see any kind of consequences for their actions.
You are vastly overestimating how much society has changed. 50 years ago we had no right to safe health care, and once again today we don't. 50 years ago our mother's were being beaten and sexually assaulted by their partners at sickening rates, and still we are today. 50 years ago women were paid less than men, and so we are today. I could go on. Nominally blatant hatred towards women is less tolerable in today's media, but its still tolerated and present in a lot of it. Our actual lives, our actual experiences, our suffering at the hands of misogyny has changed very little from 50 years ago. I mentioned in another comment, but I briefly worked with kids at a youth center. And I can say with certainty that the trend isn't even better with their generation. Systemic change was always required to solve systemic issues, and we have never even come close to systemic change with regards to misogyny. That would mean deconstructing one of the cornerstones of American society and culture, and you've seen how any attacks on American society or culture are perceived. Our concerns are always dismissed and our proposal for change always falls on deaf ears by those who see no problem with our suffering.
So just because crimes against women still occur we haven’t improved at all? It’s not an improvement until there is absolutely zero crimes being committed against women?
Again, you can’t expect that to happen in a century. Crimes against women have been taken much more seriously in recent years, hell, some of them weren’t even considered crimes 50 years ago. Prejudices and patriarchal attitude has also been getting less and less intense, as people, both male and female, realized they’re generally harmful to everyone. Things have gotten better, are getting better and hopefully will get even better as more and more “relics of the past” leave this world and newer generations take over.
When women are actively losing rights i don't see how you could possibly think that inequality against women is getting better. You're just dismissing change by saying women must continue to suffer the effects of misogyny until some undetermined point in the future when all will naturally resolve itself. Misogyny has existed in many forms throughout all of human history. Now is the time when women are able to best advocate for themselves. We are not equal and it has only improved in terms of the social acceptability of voicing outright hatred towards women. This is a good thing, and I'm not saying it isn't. It is not enough. It is nowhere near enough. Women are so burdened by misogyny that we can never be equal unless we are actively counteracting misogyny wherever it exists.
The reality is inequality against women has not improved nearly as much as you seem to think. I am a woman, I have first hand experience of it. If you see the improvement of inequality against women as a good then I have no idea why were having this conversation. You should be able to completely understand the way women suffer systemic institutional violence and discrimination in a way that men as a class do not. We can never even scratch the surface of doing something about it if every time we talk about it we're told that we are exaggerating and lying, or worse that we're attacking men.
Misogyny which is a systemic issue requires systemic solutions. Simply making it socially unacceptable to outright advocate explicit violence and hatred against women does not address the many other ways that women suffer from misogyny. But this is all moot, as we don't even legally have the same rights as of now. So it doesn't matter, women are objectively suffering because of misogyny from even the state and it's violence in much the same ways we are in the 1970s. In many ways today's landscape looks even bleaker than it did then, with states and politicians actively taking away more women's rights.
What rights are you losing? I can only think of the whole abortion issue in the US and it’s pretty clear people are already sick and tired of it and it’s not going to last for long, unless they pull some shenanigans. In the meantime I feel very bad for women who saw or will see denied an abortion request as that’s something that can straight-up ruin your life, but unfortunately as long as America is so reliant on religion you can’t expect to see decisions that make sense. Again, time will definitely help as newer generations are overwhelmingly irreligious and in support of abortion.
And no, I’m not dismissing change. Actually we haven’t even talked about change at all. The main focus of this discussion has been more of an oppression olympics kind of one. So in case I missed it, what is your suggestion for an actual, systemic solution that will solve sexism? Because I really can’t think of one that isn’t “teach kids not to be sexist and hope it trickles down as time goes on”.
I mean the right to bodily autonomy and access to safe health care has been taken away for women. Its already been a year, I dont know how you can consider that not lasting long. There's an entire party of politicians in America and in a lot of other closely related countries that is openly against the rights of women. In Texas and Florida there are pushes to have women's rights to custody and divorce changed. By the parties currently ruling those states. But in any case, what's written in law and what happens are not the same and discrimination against women exists even in ways the law says are illegal.
Theres the anti feminist "oppression olympics" concept again. A systemic solution to misogyny would be to actively undo the systemic inequalities against women. Make misogyny unacceptable at any level of society, someone who is misogynistic should not be allowed to exist socially in any context whatsoever. It should be met with active resistance in every place it exists. Women should be paid equally, and the government should be interfering in business hiring practices and wage disputes to ensure that women are at all levels being paid equally. Meritocracy isn't real, and women should be afforded equal political and social power in all contexts. That means the dissolution of all forms of patriarchal propaganda, the dissolution of the institution of the nuclear family, the dissolution of sex based discrimination in all forms of education housing and employment, a completely rebuilt justice system that appropriately investigates every single incidence of sexual harassment sexual assault and rape and ensures that punishment is extremely severe.
And even that wouldn't totally resolve it in all its forms, since capital is the primary vehicle for the ruling class to use power. Capitalism upholds patriarchy, and income inequality would need to be addressed to make women equal in society.
Uh, it is unacceptable and met with resistance in the great majority of the first world? We can’t really do any more than that, you want a law to be able to legally murder someone on the basis of a misogynistic affirmation?
Great, how do you enforce that when not even all white men are paid equally? People are always going to have biases. We can make laws for public employment and impose ranges for private ones, but there’s never going to be a list exhaustive enough so that every person doing a job is retributed the same way.
And this is what is constantly trying to be done (well, except in half of post-2016 USA but that’s a different issue). Nuclear family is in an “involuntary” constant decline with the majority group of people being “married without children” in a 2000 statistic. I don’t really remember hearing about any blatantly patriarchal propaganda or systemic sex-based discriminations in education, housing or employment in recent times and I’m pretty sure the little that still does exist is in a shrinking minority, feel free to prove me wrong.
This is, supposedly, what’s in place now, but the fact that it isn’t working doesn’t mean it’s intentional. In general, sexual crimes are among the least likely to leave physical, indisputable proof, and it is therefore very hard for judges to prosecute them effectively. The fact that yes, the justice system is a very old institution and has definitely bias behind it is undeniable, but while I hope it gets “rebuilt” as well, I don’t think it’s going to change much (unless you fill it with people that have a bias towards males, which would just be changing the target of the problem).
This is very exaggerated
How much time would you say you dedicate to investigating men's issues vs women's issues?
As a woman and my friend group being mostly women anything that affects women I hear about. I have listened plenty of times to men talking about the problems they face. I'm aware of the challenges imposed on men by society, many of which are directly related to and affected by misogyny and toxic masculinity. I'm not a sociology researcher by any means, I see studies I come across and listen to people talk about problems they face. I have my own personal experiences with men and those of my friends family and partners past and present.
I don't take issue with discussion of men's issues, thats objectively good. It does not have to be to the dismissal of misogyny though.
Could you put a number on it? Like... for every 10 studies/articles on women's issues you read, how many men's issues studies would you be reading? 10 to 10? 10 to 5? 10 to 2?
Or let's say you've spent idk... 200 hours looking into women's issues, talking to women, etc... How many hours have you listened to men, or researched their issues? 200:200, 200:100, 200:50? (not counting debates) Your best ballpark.
Like how many men's forums are you subscribed to?
I cannot adequately answer that question, and its complicated by many studies I've read being surveys of both men and women. I also am a woman, so I have my own first hand experiences of misogyny.
I'm subscribed to forums that are about things that affect both men and women, but as I have less to contribute in the way of advice and assistance for men I do not subscribe specifically to any of them. Doesn't mean I don't see any of their content however.
You should definitely take the leap! If you can approach male spaces without bias you'd gain deeper perspective into these issues.
I am aware of what issues affect men. I am aware of social pressures on men. I am also aware of the ways that men as a class have privilege and how they both benefit from and suffer because of misogyny.
You are in quite a position to be saying that I need a deeper perspective on gender issues.
I don't see how you can make that claim at all when you don't even read male forums, much less can't even put a vague number on your own exposure.
Here's a good article from a woman that lived as a man for 18 months.
Multiple competing perspectives are crucial. You are not immune from bias.
This assumes women on average are as interest in "just sex" as men are. I don't care for men thinking my body is just good enough for sex.
I mean, in a relationship, what else do you need a body for? The main thing that keeps two people interested in each other is the personality, as long as the bodies are “good enough” to sexually stimulate your partner there’s not much more they’re needed for. Hell, for some that isn’t even a requirement.
But it doesn't make sense to complain about women supposedly having higher standards when men and women seem to have, on average, different expectations towards a relationship? I would rather be alone than being with a person who just finds my body good enough. For many men this seems to be different.
I always thought the “different expectations” prejudice about relationships was more about average men wanting a “body to fuck” that’s also a pleasant person and average women wanting a pleasant person that’s also a “body to fuck” (you know, the old adage about push-up bras and lies).
I don’t know if it’s also about how much is your body attractive to your partner, to me it seems like an unnecessary requirement and kind of “objectifying yourself”. Like, if a person is in love with your personality and finds your body simply “attractive”, is that not good enough for a relationship to you? That situation is like hitting a jackpot for most men I know.
It is objectifying towards yourself. And it stems from the fact that in media and our society in general women are valued by their looks. There are very few examples for likeable female characters, for example, who aren't also beautiful and young. It's a complex issues and that's why it is especially questionable to produce such a meme.
Then why would you do that? If you recognize it’s not right to expect that, why would you specifically want a partner that absolutely loves your body?
Because, as we’ve been saying, most characters (whether males or females) in fiction are beautiful. There’s also very few examples of likeable male characters that aren’t also beautiful.
You might have a point with the age but I’d attribute that to historical Hollywood stars being mostly male, as more popular actresses get old we’ll definitely see more likeable old women.
You would do that because that's how you are socialised as a woman growing up. Your value is your youth and how beautiful you are. That's it.
It is not easy to just rid yourself from socialising. As a man this can be hard to get when it's about beauty standards because beauty standards imposed onto men are not even close as restrictive as those imposed onto women.
There are many examples for unattractive, funny looking, old, chubby, etc. male characters in media. For female characters that's the exception.
I don’t know, I really don’t get the reasoning. I can understand being conditioned so that your subconscious gives a higher importance to your body than what it should be, and that can be hard to completely get rid of, but you consciously typed “I would rather be alone than being with a person who just finds my body good enough”. That doesn’t seem like something egodystonic you’re actively trying to fight.
And as for representation in media, are all those funny looking/chubby characters actual, three-dimensional characters or are they just the comic relief whose main point of their personality is “he’s a nerd/fat/ugly”? Because for fat kids that’s exactly the opposite of body positivity, and the only reason why there’s so many males and little females in that trope is because making fun of a woman for her appearance is generally something frowned upon (meanwhile for men it’s totally ok, at least until recently)
Why would I fight it though? I don’t see it as a necessity to have a romantic relationship with someone.
There are plenty of examples where the male character is not attractive and is also not made fun of.
Because you said it’s objectifying yourself? And that’s not a good thing? And saying you’re not that interested in romance is very different from “I would rather be alone than being with a person who just finds my body good enough“. That means you’re interested, as long as the other person finds your body very attractive.
Again, define “not attractive”. Because ugly and fat characters are almost always made fun of. If “not ugly, but not gorgeous” characters count as “not attractive” I can find a lot of female ones too.
Unfortunately there are too many "open-minded" and "open-minded"-adjacent people who have huge blindspots to their own hypocrisy and philosophical paradoxes. I've met so many IRL and net-folk who are lefty "activists" who are huge fucking racists and douchebag misogynists. Extinction Rebellion for example is full of them. I get a bad taste in my mouth whenever I remember certain interactions with them.
I think that might be related to whether someone sees people as good and bad, or as being capable of doing good and bad things.
From how I see it, classifying people as just good and bad is very reductive in that you assume that bad people do bad things with bad intentions and the opposite for good people. That means that if you're certain that you're a good person, you don't need to question your own actions or motives because you can't do bad.
If you however see people as capable of making good or bad actions with good or bad intentions, you should realize that people you see as good can do bad things and vice versa. That means you should always examine your own motivations and your own decisions to make sure you're doing the right things for the right reasons.
I personally believe this is why it is so common among certain activist groups to harbor some absolutely atrocious beliefs that seem contrary to what they're working for.
That makes a lot of sense. I guess it's always a matter of education in the home and otherwise. Critical thinking and self-analysis seem to be difficult to engender when there's a culture of accepted vertical hierarchy. I don't think it's wrong to say capitalist philosophical leanings create emotionally and philiosophically lazy individuals. The true laziness is always in the opposite direction of the espoused morals of work culture.
Man, fuck extinction rebellion and their transphobic religious prosthelytising
They're like the Catholic Church of environmental activism.
And both cis men and cis women don't experience body policing in even remotely similar ways to nonbinary people. Most women don't need a letter from a psychiatrist costing thousands of dollars to get permission to have a body they can enjoy.
Yes, I am aware of transphobia and discrimination against nonbinary people.
I know you are, but there's plenty of gibletheads in this thread who ought to be told it
Probably my new favorite word there lol :P
Prehensile penis is the unachievable body standard for the dense folk out there
Well it’s not clearly a penis and OP’s link is dead so I think it’s pretty easy to miss if you haven’t watched the show.
Then again, if you haven't watched the show, you haven't truly lived.
points at science project that works out 20 hours a day while taking a cocktail of steroids and hormones from a panel of doctors
This is what a normal man should look like.
Wonder what steroids they're using
And don't forget the intentional dehydration for topless scenes. Hugh Jackman has been very open about that.
Same technique used by body builders I assume during competition.
How does that work?
they kinda gradually stop drinking over 2-3 days, often on the day of the shoot they don't drink anything, it makes your skin kinda thinner and it helps make your muscles more "ripped"
Oof, that sounds seriously unhealthy. No food for a couple days, sure, most humans can handle that no problem. But no water? Damn.
oh it's very unhealthy, stresses your kidneys, heart, causee just the worst headaches
Everyone at a bodybuilding competition does this as well. It certainly doesn't seem good.
It is unhealthy and as far as I can tell no actor is a fan of it
The actor of Green Arrow talked about. The Green Arrow series has some really dedicated scenes.
A healthy, normal-weight adult can fast safely for a week, after that you should get a doctor involved to take blood levels to be on the safe side and take whatever micro-nutrients you get prescribed. The longest fast ever was done by Angus Barbieri, 382 days, on a diet of coffee, tea, sparkling water and supplements (as per doctor's order). He was an absolute unit going in normal weight people don't last that long.
Going without water will be deadly in three days or less, no exceptions. Doing it in a climate where you're not sweating helps but ultimately you have metabolic products to flush out of your system which won't work without water intake. The body is going to allow poisoning itself before it shuts down, that's the kind of situation where no matter what you intend to do, at some point you're going to catch a rabbit with your bare hands, rip of its head, and drink the blood.
Oh, and while I'm at it: Distilled water is safe to drink. Yes, it's easier to get water poisoning with distilled water as opposed to ordinary but either is an achievement and requires fasting as well at not giving in to that sudden urge to murder your salt shaker. We get the overwhelming majority of our minerals from food, not drinks.
The good ones, under doctor supervision. If youre someone who doesnt think they're on gear you're a sweet summer child of the most innocence.
Mostly testosterone for building the muscle base probably, then potentially something like anavar (oral oxandrolone) for a few weeks before filming the shirtless scenes, as orals make you temporarily blow up with water and glycogen. Could be some use of diuretics before filming, too - they definitely use water manipulation/restriction to get that ultra-lean look on the day. I've only included drugs you could feasibly get from the doctor, rather than anything too exotic. I do, however, guarantee they all used a significant amount of steroids in addition to the extremely strict diet and training they are very keen to talk about.
My favorite part about all that work is that it's undone literally that same night, when they eat and drink like a normal person.
The first of the second row, Viagra
Trueee 😂
When asked what character i wanted to be, i have always said tentacle monster. The tentacle monster gets all the hot chics.
I thought it was the prehensile penis from The Boys.
And there's a sentence I never expected to write out.
It is. That was the origin on of this meme. It was in TheBoys subreddit specifically as a joke about the prehensile penis.
That's not a regular, gym going tentacle - it had to take steroids to reach that level of physique. Totally unrealistic expectations for us noodles here.
Ugly people don't sell. I'm shit outta luck
Did anyone ever do a Love sausage cosplay? Would be sick
OP, the link in your post is dead, I think a lot more people are going to miss it lol
They don't put men like this in movies for women.
Oh yeah, remember that box office failure that no one talked about? Magic Mike? I hope Channing Tatum's ego has recovered.
How do you know that? What makes you say that? Does it even matter why they're put into movies?
As far as I understand it the image posted does not claim that these bodies are put into movies for women. Personally I would argue that unrealistic bodies are put there for both genders, but perhaps more so for the opposite sex. However, looking at the posted image neutrally and without reading anything into it that's not there, to the main idea behind the image is to point out the fact that not not only women but also men are depicted unrealistically more often than not. Or at the very least statistically above average.
Some women might lust over this, but that's not why they are put there. They are the male power fantasy and are added for the benefit of the guys that watch it.
There's a reason most straight women find Loki more attractive than Thor and I've seen guys completely blindsided by that because they see everything through the male gaze.
You're not right. What's the proof behind most women finding loki more attractive? Typical terminally online take, so predictable.
As a woman who has mostly straight friends.... I don't know a single other woman that finds Hemsworth more attractive than Hiddleston. And most women I know would also say Andy Samberg is very attractive. I don't know many men who would admit that Samberg is attractive.
Almost universally bodies in media are designed to appeal to men first and women second. There are exceptions, yes, but they are just exceptions.
Those men haven't watched Popstar.
Tell me you've never talked to a woman without telling me you've never talked to a woman...
Ok, so I'm confused about what's being implied here. Is it that media makers don't care about making things sexually appealing to straight women? If there's profit in it, why wouldn't they?
Seems to me that women in general tend to base less of their attraction on visual or physical cues than men do. But what I don't understand is why there's an air of moral superiority around the ways that women judge attractiveness and a condemnation of the way that men judge attractiveness. Non-physical traits might be a better basis for a relationship, but we're not talking about a relationship. We're talking about fictional media.
If women responded to sex appeal in the same way that men do, I see no reason why media makers wouldn't include it. In fact, I would argue in media targeted primarily at women, they do tend to portray men with both physical and non-physical traits that appeal to women. But the fact that superhero physiques might be included mainly to appeal to men in no way counters the argument that it can lead to body-image issues.
Guys guys guys c/lemmyshitpost c/lemmyshitpost
Is nobody going to comment on the bottom ~right~ left picture 😂
You mean the bottom left one right?
Yeah, sorry
Beauty standards for women focus on what men find attractive. Beauty standards for men also focus on what men find attractive.
As far as I know there’s not much difference in beauty canons between women and gay men or men and lesbians. So it’s not really saying much.
That's not true at all. I'm a nonbinary femme attracted to nonbinary femmes, and I have a similar sense of beauty to many lesbians, when it comes to pretty women. When I see an image of a woman that's framed to appeal to male sexuality, I feel a sense of revulsion. Sapphic porn is way more respectful, more humanising, and way more hot to myself and lesbians than porn made for straight men.
Women have similar taste in men to gay men, because both are sexually attracted to men. When I say beauty standards for men focus on what men find attractive, I'm talking about the average man. A straight one. Movie stars like The Rock appeal to a straight male power fantasy, rather than to sexual desire. Beauty standards for women are about sex. Beauty standards for men are about power.
Can I get a non amp link or can you make your post a bit more specific so I don't have to visit some adhole?
The link would be to The Sun anyway, so amp or not, you'd be better off without it tbh..
Why can't you talk about this issue without a side jab at the issues women face?
What side jab? Showing men can face similar issues is a side jab?
Why can't things be compared?
The first lines of the meme. Explain to me what else they are supposed to mean?
I don't take it to be criticising women's issues, but rather the bias.
What bias?
Unfortunately, due to the toxic discussions that have taken place on this post I've decided to lock the comments. Sorry
So stupid
All of these are in superhero movies, not exactly a representative sample of male movie bods.
Except for the fact that basically every leading man who takes his shirt off in 99% of mainstream movies have physiques much closer to this than those of most regular people.
How many women in movies with regular bodies are shown?
Very few as well. I was addressing the unrealistic male bodies, not dismissing the fact that the same problem exists (arguably to a much worse degree) with regards to women like the OP seems to do.
But OP was very likely referring to the fact that women discuss how female bodies are depicted unrealistically in almost every piece of media. The meme makes fun of women talking about that issue, pretending that men are also depicted unrealistically. That's the whole punch line.
Yeah I know, that's why I made sure to point out that I was NOT doing that. No matter the OP, you can and should acknowledge both rather than pretend that they're mutually exclusive.
OP was referring to a guy choking another guy with his 50ft dick.
I don't care either way lol
It's almost like humans in general prefer looking at people who appear healthy and conventionally attractive.
The fact that so many people have let themselves become fat and slovenly, doesn't really impact our evolutionary desire to mate with healthy specimens... And being fit generally demostrates reproductive readiness.
These bodies are exemplary of course,but looking closer to that compared to the fupas and gunts waddling around bitching and moaning isn't that difficult. Put the fork down and take a walk.