TheBruteSquad

Few people set out specifically to create a 'power fantasy' as a character. That's not a concept (with the exception of several Image characters and, as you mentioned, Captain Marvel - though that's more wish fulfillment than power fantasy.)

The fantasy is in the execution, not the concept. Little kids didn't used to dress up like Superman to pretend to be protected by him: They did it to pretend to be him. The fantasy is in the idea that anyone could have been selected to be a Lantern. The fantasy is with the idea that despite how much of a 'loser' Peter Parker has been made out to be he ended up (for 20 years anyways) with a supermodel wife.

Regardless, the broad topic at hand is the oversexed portrayal of both genders in comics. That has nothing to do with the origin of the characters or the background of the characters and everything to do with the portrayal of the characters, so we should stick to your first assertion: It's all because of bad art.

Who is a good modern artist? What makes them good? How do they avoid the 'bad art' pitfall? How are their men and women portrayed?

I don't see why not. I believe the heart of the debate lies with the assumption that if they did, they'd be less likely to run around in a bikini (like in comics) - whereas the article assumes that a man would be MORE likely (I would be, most guys I know would be, I couldn't even imagine not being more likely).

Personally, what I see sexist about the premise in the article isn't the assumption that all men would wear speedos if they had the body for it. What I see as (typically) sexist is the assumption that no woman would dress up like a comic super-heroine if she had the body for it.

But we DON'T all look like that. Because we can't look like that. Even if our genetics were perfect and we trained every day of our lives we couldn't get that physique. That's what makes a superheroic physique a 'power fantasy'. It's also a huge factor as to why comic art evolved in the direction it did - when the unattainable became more common place (ie, the builds from the sixties can and are replicated by gym rats of today) the bar on unattainable had to be raised.

As for the second paragraph... well, that's certainly an interesting glimpse into your psyche. I've never once been rescued or felt helpless in my own imagination, and never once been more concerned with empathizing with the victims in a comic than putting myself in the place of the hero saving the day. Ever. If I read Superman and daydream, I *AM* Superman.

Durakken, focus on the reasoning and not the framing.

The 'wish' scenario is essentially what is presented in the article's context. "If you looked like Namor, you'd happily wear speedos too."

Arcanaville's stance is that's broad sweeping and offensive to men, "that no matter how sexualized or ludicrous Namor's costumes are, well, we all know all men would jump at the chance to look like Namor."

My stance is 'Yes, yes they would. 8000+ years of a largely male dominated society creating male power fantasies has produced 8000 years of ripped men who can beat any opponent, be invulnerable to harm, tear the earth asunder with their might, wrestle lions, punch out bears, and make women swoon. Why *wouldn't* a man want to get in on that?"

Sure it is. Absolutely absurd.

But... no matter how sexualized or ludicrous Namor's costumes are we DO all know all men would jump at the chance to be built like him.

I guarantee that if you polled a group of 1000 men from ages 14 to 30 with the question 'If someone could give you a six pack of abs with the snap of their fingers, would you take it?' - you'd get a thousand 'yes' answers. (I'm sure I'd get a few 'no' answers from here, but 1) I'd be skeptical and 2) I would love to hear 'why not')

Like I said, it's not purely for the ladies. It's about dominance. It's the heart of competitive and entertainment sports - the deep seated psychological need to strive, to compete, to be BETTER than other men.

I'm about as unambitious in life as a man comes, but the sheer primal joy I got when outlifting someone, or smashing them into the boards, or tackling them into the ground, or twisting them into submission? It was intense. These days the feeling can be transposed to things like video games - the profound satisfaction of owning someone - but it all comes from the same place.

And all of that would be a lot easier if you were built like Captain America or Namor.

There are no average built men in comics because we (men) won't accept average in our power fantasies. We never have - look to the original superheroes: myths. For as long as we've had recorded history it's always been about physical dominance. Hercules, Zeus, Thor, Atlas, Cu Chulainn, the Spartans (the hero worshiped versions) - no scrawny weaklings among them. Look to even modern fiction - the Klingons, the myriad of other token warrior races in any setting, the action hero, the marines (the hero worshiped versions).

So in a sense we DO all know that. Men have spent 8000 year writing stories and drawing pictures telling us so. (Hell, pictographs on cave walls of hunting, celebrating a memorable kill, tell us so.)

All this is true. Though I wouldn't have thought 'women are less able to tolerate it', as it's false. It's also not what I got from the article. Rather, I think the perceived damage comes from the possibility that these oversexualized images may influence a man's image of women. Hence 'objectifying', 'demeaning', 'man's power fantasy'. A man influenced by these sources who treats women in a certain way as a result of this influence *is* being sexist.

I think you're right and the definition does need to be revisted more often - people (including me) associate it with being similar to racism: a person who writes racist propaganda is a racist, a person who reads it might not be, a person who is influenced by it is.

When I was growing up and collecting comics books both my sister and mother found the way women were drawn in comics as 'childish' and 'silly' over 'insulting', so I personally have always assumed that's the default position of most women (as perception is heavily influenced by familiarity). As a result I, too, consider the way women are drawn in comics to be 'silly' over 'sexy'. It's the way they're often written or the situations they're often subjected to that I consider 'sexist'.

At this point, I can all but guarantee that in just a few paragraphs you'e put more thought into said thesis than the guy who parroted it for his article (it's not his thesis - writers and stand up comedians have been joking about it for years).

I'm trying, but I can't see any insult towards men. Most guys I know, including myself, would indeed take the attitude 'if you've got it, flaunt it'. It's why some men lift weights on beaches: It's a brutally impractical and uncomfortable place to lift (I've done it). It serves no other purpose, at all, than to show off your muscles or strength - to intimidate smaller men, gain the respect of larger ones, and (ideally) infatuate women. Captain Caveman impulses at their purest.

So while Tom Jones ridiculous isn't a fashion, that I'm aware of, I could easily see a nigh invulnerable muscle buff going shirtless whenever possible. Hell, my male model little brother does and he's far from invulnerable (not that anyone can convince him of that).

As an aside, I honestly can't think of anything anyone could draw or say to me that would stop me in my tracks and say 'Whoa, there. That's sexist. I feel hurt and degraded by that remark.' There's lots of things a person can say to insult a man - very little a person can say that insults men. Tim Allen's career attests to that.

Not really. Traditionally men have never been powerless as a gender, therefore have no state of inequality to be culturally devolved to.

That said, I believe cases of female to male sexual harassment in the workplace are on the rise - because for possibly the first time in recorded history women, such as a CEO, can indeed threaten a male employee with loss of advancement, termination of employment, refusal of pay increase, etc. In previous centuries this was a rare thing reserved for... royalty maybe.

Maybe give it a few more generations?

For all we know it very well MAY be the <player protagonist villain> who kills him.

Perhaps that there was a leak and any hope of putting the spin they wanted on this event demanded a prompt write up before it became 'oh, right. Statesman dies. Yeah, yeah. People were twittering about that last month.'?

Or perhaps that this is only *one* death in the arc, and there's a second one they're keeping under tight wrap to floor us since we're now not expecting it?

Not for any real length of time, but if we bypass the primary control systems and reroute auxiliary power through the transitional phase coils we might just be able to pull it off.

1 - The Hollows were already neglected, even after the revamp, in favor of police scanner missions in Kings Row and Steel Canyon. Less travel time, easier enemies, availability of market in zone, and potential of 'invasion' style event or seeing a task force forming ensures that the Hollows never really stands a chance in most players minds.

1a) Origin was always useless beyond veteran attacks and type of enhancements you can use. Adding back 5 lame level 1 to 5 missions won't change this.

2 - Red side has always been a graveyard. Going Rogue sealed its fate and Freedom put a nail in the coffin. There's nothing new here, aside from people not being 'forced' to play a blue side AT they didn't want to because they don't like villains or having to spend 20 levels in a setting they hate to play the AT they want to play in the place they want to play it. Freedom did more damage to Praetoria that it did to red side for this very reason.

3 - No comment, as I skip the new tutorial just like I skipped the old ones.

THAT is your definition of conservative?

He's... a hundred year old vampire who hangs around high schools?

He's... a dude who can't keep his shirt on and turns into a big fluffy dog that looks like something from the muppets?

Would it be fair to say at this point that, while you haven't changed your mind, the devs have changed theirs?

I mentioned this, sans nerfage, in post 18. Tankers make out like BANDITS with incarnate powers.