[ SECRET POST #3347 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3347 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[The Sound of Music]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Step Up Revolution]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[Richonne & Ichabbie/Andy+Danai, Nicole+Tom]

__________________________________________________



06.
(Hamilton)


__________________________________________________



07.
[Elementary]

__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 020 secrets from Secret Submission Post #478.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Why is "bad anatomy" only complained about with female characters? And even then it's never "Her leg looks fucked up" "How long and twisted is her neck" or on the admittedly rare occasions when fat women are drawn, it's never "Fat doesn't sit like that" or "That must be painful"

Like, outside of Liefeld, when was the last example of bad male anatomy you saw discussed?

It's almost always "Look at those tits" "Look at that waist" "Look at that butt" "Bad anatomy! FIX IT AT ONCE! Get the artists to an anatomy class" It's almost, and I'm just spitballing here, but it's almost like people have a problem with what is being drawn, not how well it has been drawn, and complaining about the anatomy is used as a dishonest way to add legitimacy to their objection?

Like I think of that spider woman cover that caused all the shit to be unloaded. The anatomy was always brought up about her butt or her waist, which has been demonstrated on a few occasions to be if not common then at least possible, but no motherfucker has her broken neck. Seriously, did you see anyone raise a shitstorm about her neck? Her head was glued on! But the real problem is her ass.

[(Anonymous)]

Perhaps that's because the constant barrage of sexually objectified female characters is at the heart of what many people are taking issue with.

Saying, "This woman does not so much resemble a real, living person as she resembles a desk lamp," is one form of criticism. Saying, "This woman does not so much resemble a real, living person as she resembles a fantasy sex doll," is another form of criticism.

They both take issue with the lack of accuracy and believability with which the anatomy is depicted, but they are criticizing different aspects of the image. Which is perfectly reasonable.

[(Anonymous)]

It's almost, and I'm just spitballing here, but it's almost like people have a problem with what is being drawn, not how well it has been drawn, and complaining about the anatomy is used as a dishonest way to add legitimacy to their objection?

I think you nailed it.

[(Anonymous)]

It often is, though to be fair if it's really phrased as "this depiction goes to great lengths, even defying anatomy (despite the generally realistic style) just to draw attention to spiderwoman's pornographically poised ass, and here we see another example of sexualized objectification of the female body (in a non-sexual context)" I would still agree. But people writing off pictures like that because "eww look at the anatomy!" It's definitely dishonest and stupid.

[(Anonymous)]

That would indeed be more honest, but I still don't understand why objectification arguments in general overlook male objectification and conveniently erase lesbian and bisexual womens' enjoyment of this stuff. To me, that is dishonest as well.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT
yeah, as a bi woman (mostly into girls) I'm usually really pissed when people start sexism wank over images that I happen to find sexy. It's just that there should be acknowledgement of the fact that there is a severe imbalance in the way men and women are objectified, and even male objectification tends to emulate male desire. Sure, that often overlaps with our own but that doesn't make it not a problem at all. That said, I don't believe in "stahp objectifying!!" I'm pro "acknowledge female modes of desire and objectification of the male body"
But I also believe that there will always be an imbalance because there is a statistic tendency of sexual passivity being more prevalent in women. (I'm not, NEVER, saying that "passivity is typically female". there are too many different nuances and variations that are just as "typical" as anything else. I just think it's a matter of majorities.) I'm one of those women, and I don't think it's something to overcome, or something that is "just society". This tendency leads to us desiring in a non-agressive way, rather preoccupied with our own body and with experiencing certain sensations (fictional, imagined or real). Hence the fanfic vs. visual porn thing. I wouldn't even be slightly interested in objectifying male bodies, because if I'm with a man it's more about what sensations he can make me feel, not about "ohmygod his ass is so hot!"

[(Anonymous)]

I don't buy the "male desire" and "female desire" argument. That's definitive gender stereotyping.