Wonder what steroids they’re using
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 😂
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.
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.
modern crustacean look
Larry the Lobster?
Ugly people don’t sell. I’m shit outta luck
I don’t care either way lol
Is nobody going to comment on the bottom right left picture 😂
You mean the bottom left one right?
Yeah, sorry
So stupid
deleted by creator
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…
OP, the link in your post is dead, I think a lot more people are going to miss it lol
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?
Guys guys guys c/lemmyshitpost c/lemmyshitpost
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.
Have you watched anything other than action movies?
Modern action movies are like this, but if you go back into the early 80s, and especially 70s, leading men in action movies had normal bodies. Tbh it kind of went down the tube with Stallone and Arnold.
True! The point I’m trying to get at is that male bodies in drama and comedy are all extremely normal, whereas female bodies in absolutely everything all conform to one particular beauty standard. The male protagonist in any comedy movie is usually extremely normal or even below average while the woman is some absurd standard. There is a very clear difference and the people trying to pretend there isn’t in this thread are either blind or willfully and knowingly lying.
Of course I have, what sort of ridiculous question is that? Have you heard any music that isn’t jazz?
If i knew how to use AI to create images i would love to see what Viking_Hippie images are created. But also for real artists i would love to see what they come up with!
I’m actually just Scandinavian (apart from the historical berserkers, it’s also just a colloquial term for Scandinavian people) bleeding heart pacifist with some very left wing politics and more soft spots than hard ones who has big beard, sometimes long hair and thinks Queen and Creedence are two of the best bands ever 😁
That being said, the other probably lends itself to visual presentation better, so I’m all for that artistic licence 😁
So you should know that male bodies are often decidedly average or below average, while female bodies are almost always absurdly high standards. The fact that you’re trying to suggest it’s not a trope to have a really average guy with an unbelievably attractive woman is bonkers. You people are either blind or knowingly just lying. I don’t think you’re this dense so I have to assume that there is a reason you would try to lie like this, the only reason I can come up with for that is that you’re male supremacists of some sort, you’re lying just as naturally as the white supremacists do when it comes to oppression in the area they care about maintaining supremacy over.
Wow… That’s an IMPRESSIVE army of strawmen and other completely unearned vilification you’ve got there.
I’d refute all of it, but based on the speed with which you’re jumping to patently absurd conclusions, I very much doubt that anything short of divine intervention would change your mind and unlike you, I’m not in the mood for conjuring fictional beings to aid an argument based on a misunderstanding.
Anyone else who might be interested can read my comment history both in this thread and in general if they’re curious to see whether I might be the Andrew Tate style maniacally misogynistic creep liar in wilful denial that you have concluded me to be.
Stopped reading at the redditism. Leave it on reddit.
What redditism, oh wise and perfect arbiter of reality?
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.
The difference is that those men are not objectified. Yes, those bodies are unrealistic indeed, but those beefcake guys are not presented as sex objects who have no other purpose in this world than to please women.
Even guys are objectified if they are pretty enough. Many women do that with movie stars.
You’ve never watched a romatic movie or chickflick have you?
It happens, but it’s not pervasive. There’s nothing wrong with sexual imagery in a vacuum.
The issue for women is the sheer avalanche of bullshit. Images of half naked women with unrealistic bodies are EVERYWHERE. Billboards, magazine covers, commercials, etc.
It’s okay to discuss men’s issues without needing to whatabout them. Women’s issues are also valid. This isn’t a competition it’s about media creating body dysmorphia in people.
Please take a look at the meme again. Did you read the first paragraph on it? You should tell this to the meme author.
I don’t disagree. In these discussions though there almost always are a few comments that try to make the case that men actually have it just as bad as women, and I think it’s good to challenge that.
You can support what men have to deal with while also acknowledging that it’s infinitely more oppressive towards women. I think it’s often hard for some people not to mention it because it’s like, yes, feminists have been talking about this exact thing for decades, why is this a realization suddenly?
But men have been told since forever to bottle things up and not acknowledge them. Men don’t get to have emotions. This is not a new issue and in fact many men themselves perpetuate this problem. That isn’t the exact same issue anymore.
When we finally get to a point where people are discussing it, bringing up the group who have been dealing with it for years as though men aren’t allowed to to have these feelings too absolutely minimizes the initial conversation.
There is space for both conversations to happen, and both should happen. But when this happens in literally every thread trying to discuss male body dysmorphia that’s not positive conversation anymore.
I agree. I’m not trying to shut down that conversation, just contextualize it a bit and have it be part of both conversations. Both conversations are linked so I don’t see why that wouldn’t be natural.
“i’m not trying to shut down that conversation i just don’t think your viewpoints are valid”
🤣
I think my point is that they really aren’t linked. It is two groups experiencing similar things, but for a variety of reasons the context is completely different. And moreover because the conversation is essentially brand new for one group and extremely well known for the other, talking about them like they are the same cheapens the conversation around the newer group.
I’d liken it to a friend telling you about a problem they’re having and instead of listening to them, starting to talk about your own similar problems. I realize that’s a superficial example but I think it explains where I’m coming from.
I mean in no way to disregard or minimize the long and well documented struggle women have had with body image issues. But I do think men’s body image issues deserve to be discussed on their own merit without always needing to be contextualized through the lens of women’s issues.
It is hard enough to love yourself without wondering if people secretly think your body is vile
The only thing you’re doing here with your comments is saying “but women have it worse!” You’re not here to discuss the actual issue, you’re here to derail the conversation.
And the only spaces in which feminists have had these conversations is in private academic settings on the “men’s issues” day of their course curriculum. To feminists, men’s issues are a footnote. And that’s fine–I don’t expect feminists to really give a crap about how societal sexism affects men; that’s not their purview and it certainly isn’t on them to bring attention to those problems. But stop pretending feminists have given men or their issues equal or even just proportional time in their discussions, much less their activism.
I don’t see a comment saying that. All I see is someone saying that it isn’t a real problem for men.
I don’t. I see a comment trying to draw a distinction between the way that unrealistic bodies tend to be contextualized in our culture. It doesn’t say that they don’t cause body issues for men.
Here’s one: https://kbin.social/m/[email protected]/t/159507/Buffed-af#entry-comment-635033
Brandon Routh is what I imagine as “chick flic” bod. He’s in shape but I wouldn’t say he’s at all “unrealistic” or idealised bodybuilder muscular. Also let’s not forget one of the world’s most popular chick flicks of all time, The Notebook, had Cage as the lead.
Brandon Routh and Ryan Gosling are kinda regular guys? I took the OP’s meme as poking a little fun at the idea of unrealistic male body image in media, but now I’m thinking that there’s a real issue.
Seriously, a couple of square-jawed, six-foot-tall men with lustrous, full heads of hair, who have personal trainers and make working out a full-time job before a movie role? That’s realistic?
The thing is on both sides it’s for the male gaze. Women are are objectified for men (look how sexy she is, don’t you want this?), and men are objectified for men (look how strong and handsome he is, don’t you want to be like him?)
Man, you shifted those goalposts fast! You’ve been doing this a long time, haven’t you?
What goalposts did I shift and where did I shift them to?
Women are are objectified for men (look how sexy she is, don’t you want this?), and men are objectified for men (look how strong and handsome he is, don’t you want to be like him?)
If you can’t see it, I don’t think I can help you.
I’m not really sure how you move goalposts in your initial claim. I don’t think moving goalposts means what you think it means. Maybe you mean double standard, which I would still disagree with but it would at least make more sense here.
ITT, people who think attractive man = female gaze.
This is just blatant sexism.
Are you saying my comment is sexism or the practice is sexism?
Why not both? Objectifying people can be sexist, and your comment was clearly sexist. They’re not mutually exclusive.
How is my comment sexist?
Yes. Just like Fifty Shades of Grey is definitely for the male gaze.
men are objectified for men (look how strong and handsome he is, don’t you want to be like him?)
If you think women aren’t enjoying the male eye candy, I have some news for you
Reread my comment and you’ll find I never said or claimed that. But that’s not the primary reason it’s done. Women aren’t the primary demographic for comic books and comic book movies. Superhero men are drawn the way they are for the male gaze, and women are drawn the way they are for the male gaze. If some women like it too, that’s just a bonus for the publishers. This translates onto the screen.
My dude, I’ll put it plainly, I think you might be gay. There’s no way you look at a ripped, naked Chris Hemsworth butt and think “that scene was for men”
Its a male power fantasy. It isn’t “I want to sex up Chris Hemsworth” its “I want to be an absolute flesh monster like this guy” its about the idea of male success and dominating others. Written by dudebros for dudebros.
That’ll be news to my wife! (Also, you assumed I’m a man. I am, but you still assumed.)
Actually, the statement works whether you’re male or female
Think about it
Haha that’s fair
As a straight male I feel nothing looking at buff men and I can assure you it’s the same for many other men. We truly don’t feel much looking at them and they’re not presented this way for our gaze.
About the only guys I know that do care are caring because they’re insecure about their own bodies. Especially friends who exercise regularly to try to achieve these physiques.
That’s great for you. I’m glad that you’re secure in your self image. The people that these are targeted towards aren’t.
Whether it works on you or not. Whether it succeeds or not… The intent of the portrayal is a masculine power fantasy. Hell, it might be for the writer. Tony Stark (and 80% of all Marvel-men’s) ‘I’m an asshole but you love me for it’ vibe is the same thing really.
That proves the point then doesn’t it? The way society assigns value to women based on their perceived attractiveness to men is attached to misogynistic propaganda. We tell girls how to look when they’re six months old. They already know they have to be deathly thin by the time they’re 10. Many girls developing eating disorders in fucking middle school. They almost only see women who exactly fit societies definition of attractiveness in every single movie. They get bullied, they see other girls being bullied for their weight. The size of their breasts becomes a subject of mockery when they’re not even in puberty yet. Their family members, their parents, will impose standards upon them. Their friends will, their teachers, every single adult they ever encounter.
So you might see this and think nothing, just a bunch of buff guys. And that perfectly demonstrates it. This has no affect on you, you do not suffer oppressive conformation pressure due to every single aspect of your body and appearance. You don’t see yourself as having no value because you don’t look exactly like them, you don’t have every single person in your life every single piece of media in your life telling you that you have no value because you don’t look like them. We do, that’s something we deal with every single day. That’s something that literally kills us, that contributes immeasurable suffering into the world. It’s not even close to the same.
No one was even TALKING about that, why do you have to come here with your “oh women have it worse”. WE KNOW. THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT’S GREAT FOR US EITHER.
Jesus.
The commenter I am responding to made other comments, you should read them.
Also saying women have it worse doesn’t even come close to it, you should re-read my comment.
I think the “steroid guy is how all men should look” isnt coming from women but rather “alpha dudebro culture” that has no interest in asking women what they want (that would be gay/beta etc)
…no? Have you actually hung out with real people?
My partner and I tried to come up with an example of a character built for the female gaze. The best we could do was Idris Elba as a Jinn from 3000 Years of Longing.
Edit: I think you all are missing the point.
From Wikipedia
In cinematic representations of women, the male gaze denies the woman’s human agency and human identity to transform her from person to object — someone to be considered only for her beauty, physique, and sex appeal, as defined in the male sexual fantasy of narrative cinema.
So while women might like looking at the men in Magic Mike or watching nameless romcoms, the women in the stories have no agency. The men might serve their every need and save them from whatever situation, but the men are still doing all the things, and they follow the men-in-charge storyline.
Surprised you could only think of Idris! Would say he’s definitely female gaze in most of his roles. Off the top of my head, and as a woman who talks about celeb ‘crushes’ with other women, the tops are:
- Stanley Tucci in literally anything.
- Tom Hiddleston (Loki had way more female attention than Thor)
- Jack Black as Bowser
- David Harbour as Jim Hopper
- Sean Austin (in general, but also as Bob in ST)
- Paul Rudd (again, in almost anything)
- Pedro Pascal (particularly as Joel)
- Hugh Jackman in musicals (as opposed to being Wolverine)
All examples of men who, for the most part, are not obvious sex symbols in their roles, all of whom women go absolutely wild for.
I think you’re ignoring the non-physical aspects of Male Gaze.
The problem with your examples, is that in most of the stories/roles you listed, women don’t do anything. Unless the story does something to elevate women beyond passive objects, it’s still written for the Male Gaze where men make are in charge and make all the decisions.
Hmm, I see your point now I’ve looked up the actual theory of female gaze.
It seems in the modern social media space, female gaze has been used to mean something more like “the male characters who women find attractive are the ones that show more emotional, loving, nurturing and supportive traits”. So if used this way, it’s not a direct contrast to male gaze. Maybe we need to call that observation something different!
I wonder if Bob (Sean Austin) does fall into the proper definition though? His character does exist for the most part to lift every other character around him, especially Joyce Byers.
Yay! Real conversation!
Thanks for taking the time to look into it. I haven’t watched The Last of Us, but from your description, it sounds right.
TLOU is good and potentially fits the criteria, I’m not sure actually, as the main female character is a child so inherently vulnerable and kinda reliant on this achey old man to ferry her through the apocalypse. Would still recommend, I cried like a baby through certain parts.
The Sean Astin character I’m referencing is in Stranger Things S2. I think has at least one potential example of female gaze (as a compliment to Winona Ryder’s character).
Stranger Things probably isn’t great for other metrics though, like the Bechdel test.
As someone mentioned, literally almost any male romcom lead.
Disagree. They generally fall into the male gaze as well. Not necessarily physically, but the roles they play are generally cool collected dude that calls all the shots and/or saves the girl. Something men want to emulate.
Also they’re almost always rewarded with the love of the woman.
deleted by creator
Ripped dudes who show off to countless nameless faceless women? Despite performing “for” women, they are calling all the shots and definitely in charge.
so is showgirls secretly a feminist film?
I haven’t seen it, but based on what I’m reading, yes actually.
You know how everyone didn’t realize Starship Troopers is a satire?
Same director.
In hindsight, it would be extremely difficult not to read Showgirls as satirical, in the context of Verhoeven’s career. At that stage, after all, the Dutch filmmaker was in the pomp of his Hollywood phase, which saw him use popcorn genres as a way to critique his adopted homeland’s socio-political landscape: there was Robocop’s shots at law enforcement and corporate supremacy and Starship Troopers’ caustic indictment of the country’s more fascistic impulses and jingoistic foreign policy in the guise of a ‘big bug’ movie.
Showgirls may come with more rhinestones attached, but it’s even more searing in its depiction of a dehumanised world, whose ultra-consumer capitalist worldview is encapsulated in one typically bald exchange between Nomi and Cristal: “You are a whore, darlin”, “No, I’m not!” “We all are, we take the cash, we cash the check, we show ‘em what they wanna see.” The fact Showgirls wasn’t immediately understood as satire speaks to an implicit, and possibly patriarchal, bias in film criticism about what tenors of filmmaking are accorded intellectual respect – something Nayman seems to get at in You Don’t Nomi when he notes how “Verhoeven was widely understood in America as a satirist and as a social commentator as long as the primary texture of his films was violence … [whereas] he makes a movie that has a texture that is more overtly sexual [and] all of a sudden people didn’t think he was a satirist or a commentator … they just sort of said ‘what a pervert’.”
Edit: realizing now that you might have used it as an example because you’re in on the joke.
Bruh
That’s still the male gaze. Most women I know don’t care about bicep size. It’s one of those things men do to look more like other men they think have good bodies.
The scene with Tony Stark chopping wood is much closer to the female gaze, according to my friends at least. For them it’s all about the forearms and in general the type of body you get from real physical labor, not the kind of body you get from the gym
Most women I know don’t care about bicep size.
Bruh
Legolas?
Any male character from Twilight? Any male romcom character?
Twilight? The movie where the dude makes all the decisions and routinely threatens the life of the girl who has negligible agency?
Sure, women like it, but it’s written with the archetype of the man being macho and in charge. I.e. the Male Gaze.
Been reading this thread and honestly, the only thing you’ve convinced me of is that the concept of the male gaze has become so diluted through expansion that’s it’s effectively meaningless.
Bella Swan? Oh, she’s written to appeal to the female fantasy of being protected by a big strong man who is so emotionally devoted to her that being separated from her drives him to suicide. I.e. the Female Gaze.
See what I did there?
The part you’re missing is agency. It’s not just about what appeals to men or women. Whether or not Bella is in a situation that a woman might envy, she does nothing in the story. She is an object to be fawned over and protected.
I mean isn’t it a little odd that apparently men and women both like movies where men do everything? Maybe that’s a trend worth investigating?
If you want a Female Gaze movie, find a movie where the man is reduced to an object that does nothing while women run the show. It’s shockingly hard to do.
Just a tangent: In my film class back in school, they defined the male gaze by what the camera focuses on, i.e. does it mimic what a straight, male viewer would focus on. Whether a character is “designed for the male gaze” is kind of squishy, and debatable, but the mechanical, film-studies definition of male gaze is indisputable. Once you see it, you can’t unsee how many times a female character is introduced by panning up her body.
Exactly. This is pretty much what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the words.
I get the feeling that you never hang out with a group of gals on a night out
I guess I don’t hang out with myself then
Or like
Ever
Damn, RIP hungryphrog
If you think they aren’t objectified that’s your own lack of perspective.
Reminds me of the “everyone has sinful urges” anti-gay pastors
“Buff men are built for the male gaze”
My guy, I have some news for you
As a woman, who is into men, and has friends who are also into men. Everyone I know who is into men would say Hiddleston is more attractive than any of them.
When we say buff men are there for the male gaze what we’re saying is that they’re filling a male power fantasy of being the “big strong hero” archetype. You’ll also notice that all of them were depicted as being complex characters in their own right, absent of just being big and buff.
That’s not just a hot take, that’s straight up nuclear.
I’ll take “someone that hasn’t hang out with women for 300” Alex
Oh my friend, they very much are objectified. Have you never hung around straight women or gay men? Those men are slabs of meat and that’s it.
Oh yes, Thor is oiled up and shirtless while Natalie Portman ogles him for the entire first movie because… It looks powerful? It represents his stoicism? Definitely not a sexual objectification thing, oh no sir
Tbf you can be ogled and not objectified. The difference is that Thor absolutely is portrayed as a complex character with his own agency, or subjectivity. The whole movie is about him learning to step out of the role of warmonger and into a more mature, nurturing role of a king. That gives him a lot of subjectivity - the opposite of objectivity
Edit: So to clarify, yes Thor is part of a series of unrealistic body standards for men. But he’s not objectified
In social philosophy, objectification is the act of treating a person as an object or a thing. It is part of dehumanization, the act of disavowing the humanity of others. Sexual objectification, the act of treating a person as a mere object of sexual desire, is a subset of objectification,
Emphasis mine. Where in “Thor” is Thor dehumanized? Do the creators of the movie dehumanize him? No, if anything he exhibits more humanity as the movie goes on. Does Jane Foster dehumanize him? No, she’s clearly sexually attracted to him and some scenes do focus on his body, but that’s not enough to dehumanize someone. He is not a “mere object of sexual desire” because those scenes exist amid an entire movie that treats Thor with respect as a character, including Jane who gets to know him and love him. The only character who dehumanizes him could be Loki but he’s clearly portrayed as being wrong
The difference is that Thor absolutely is portrayed as a complex character with his own agency, or subjectivity.
So is Black Widow, but she is 100% leathered up sex symbol too and no one questions that.
Sex symbol =/= objectified. There’s nothing wrong with being a sexy character. Sexual objectification is the reduction of a person or character to nothing but sex. Or, if you want a more accurate definition, you can look at Wikipedia’s definition which I gave somewhere else
Tbf you can be ogled and not objectified. The difference is that Thor absolutely is portrayed as a complex character with his own agency, or subjectivity.
By that definition, no female main character of a film ever has been objectified.
I think what the commenter is trying to say is that male characters tend to have more to their overall presence in movies than just their body since they are generally the protagonists, but female characters are often only there to show their bodies and have very little character depth in comparison.
Though, granted, that commenter probably has horrible taste in movies if this observation is so starkly visible to them.
No there are plenty of female characters who are portrayed as two-dimensional sex objects, just like there are male characters who are portrayed the same. But Thor is not one of them. And the existence of sex appeal around a character =/= objectification
No there are plenty of female characters who are portrayed as two-dimensional sex objects
But none of them were their film’s main characters, right? I mean, by definition if the character has agency and complexity to them, they’re not being objectified, and basically every main character has some degree of agency and complexity. Can you give me an example of a female film lead who is objectified by the definition you’ve provided here?
It’s not really to do with whether they’re the protagonist, it’s how they’re treated as a character (and by extension the actor). Off the top of my head the best example is Carly from Transformers 3. She’s incredibly 2-dimensional. What do we know about her, her motivations, what drives her? Well, not a lot. At best you could argue she has a good job and is responsible for getting Megatron to help OP. But when we look at the movie overall it’s not great. She’s consistently needing saved by Sam, the film goes to lengths to focus on her borderline inappropriate relationship with her male boss, and she just doesn’t do a lot for the plot that doesn’t serve some male. In fact, her introduction, arguably the most important scene for establishing her character, is a camera shot of her ass. That’s objectification because the character exists amid a web of weak characterization and conformity to gender roles that treat her more like a trophy than a proper character
Carly was not the main character of that film, Sam was. I really think you’re missing my point. You’ve defined objectification in such a way that no lead character could ever be said to be objectified. So, if you’re going to use that definition to claim that Thor isn’t objectified, you must agree that no female protagonist can claim to be objectified to be consistent with your own definition.
La Femme Nikita
Haven’t seen that particular film, but is the female lead shown to be powerful? Does she have agency? I would presume she does. Is there some complexity to her character (e.g. she has to resolve some sort of inner turmoil during the film)? My point is the these criteria (which DudePluto put forward, not me) preclude such characters from being objectified. I don’t agree with that. As I understand objectification, characters like the lead in La Femme Nikita can be sexually objectified, even though they have agency and complexity to them. My point is that DudePlato’s claims about how objectification works preclude many examples of female leads that have been argued to have been objectified in the past.
Tbf you can be ogled and not objectified
I gotta get me some of that copium, looks like the good stuff.
Or, like, learn what objectification actually means (and “cope” for that matter, what am I coping about? I’m just having an internet discussion)
deleted by creator
Oh I’m sorry, did I make you feel accountable for something? Nowhere did I blame women in my post. Go take the projection elsewhere.
I really feel like this misses the point. And it sells both men and women short.
The most cruel part of depictions like this isn’t simply that the opposite sex is or isn’t drooling over them. It’s that they are presented as ideal and desirable physiques.
This impacts how people feel like they should aspire to look. And that impacts how they feel about their own bodies.
It is so reductive to focus just on whether these bodies are objectified by the opposite sex. It’s the internal struggle people are faced with that is the real issue.
I think you have a point except for the fact that the meme is about unrealistic body standards, not objectification. So it’s kinda like bringing up pancakes in a conversation about waffles
fair point
But why does the meme has to take a jab at the problems women face? It’s undebatable that women are faced with unrealistic body standards all the time. And I don’t get why the meme has to try and take away from that.
It doesn’t. That’s not what the meme is saying at all.
The point of the meme is that no one ever talks about unrealistic male body standards, despite it being so blatant.
Because the discussion of legitimate male issues is being co-opted by anger and anti-feminism. But that’s just my guess
this comment section reads like a twitter exchange and it’s fucking mind numbing
I guess the masses are indeed immigrating from Reddit.
The internet is a battleground of ideas.
Well it is in the shitpost fed
They don’t put men like this in movies for women.
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.
Tell me you’ve never talked to a woman without telling me you’ve never talked to a woman…
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.
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.
Oh yeah, remember that box office failure that no one talked about? Magic Mike? I hope Channing Tatum’s ego has recovered.
Part of that franchise’s marketing is that there aren’t many movies like it.
Yet they all still drool over them 🤔
Nah?
Well maybe.
Usually nah.
Unless?
Nah. They gotta have cute puppy dog eyes at some point. Gotta be more than a husk. Or a himbo. Himbos are good too.
Sometimes (the freak lobster men like top right aren’t what most women are into lol), but Hollywood doesn’t give a shit about what women want. This is what men want. It’s all power fantasy.
What is the point? Of course a good looking man is good looking. Why wouldn’t I find his body attractive?
You missed the whole point of the post then lmao
