[ SECRET POST #2209 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2208 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 121 secrets from Secret Submission Post #316.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It seems to me that every female body type that appears in media is criticized for being "conventional".

A female character is skinny? She's "conventionally slender". The artist fails.

A female character is buxom? She's "conventionally curvy/hourglass". The artist fails.

The character is noticeably heavy/overweight? She's not really fat; she's only "Hollywood fat". Fail.

She's muscular? She's only sneering scare quotes "muscular" because she carries the muscle evenly and still has a female shape, with less prominent pectorals and abs. You know, like an actual muscular woman. Still, THE ARTIST FAILS.

I think the reason you don't see female characters depicted like the person in your secret is because, unless they're bodybuilding or taking testosterone, most female bodies just won't carry muscle that way. That sort of build automatically parses as "male". It would be like giving a woman a beard. I mean, it's technically possible for it to happen, but why would you do that? Beard representation? Unless the artist's intent is specifically to subvert gender norms, it just doesn't make sense.

[(Anonymous)]

Nope. See, there are millions of possible body types that AREN'T those stock figures, so... the criticism stands, why continue to use "ooh sexy thin," "ooh sexy curvy," and "ooh sexy 'fat'"?

[(Anonymous)]

If you're trying to get someone to listen to your side of things, being patronizing rarely helps. You used both the "I am objectively correct" opener ("Nope.") and the "You must be dull; I need to explain this to you" lead-in ("See..."). That's a lot of condescension in two sentences.

Often they're not "sexy fat" or "sexy thin", but get criticized as "conventional" unless they're far from statistical norms (shapes you are actually unlikely to see on a person). If a character is [x], they're not [x] enough.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "stock figures", because what I listed were broad categories, and thousands of shapes fall under each one. And human bodies actually do all fall within certain bounds (there are physical impossibilities). It seems to me that they need to be depicted on the very edges of those bounds in order to be accepted and not considered "convention". It makes more sense to me to create characters who look like someone you might actually see every day on the street.

[omaera]

I have yet to see a woman portrayed in media who is not "sexy fat" or "sexy thin" except in rare cases where they're supposed to be outliers, and then they're basically always shown in a negative way (drug users, anorexics, scary fat people on medical shows, etc.).

You also missed one important category of women that do not fall under any of the ones you listed, yet also encompasses an enormous number of women: the ones who do not, in fact, have a standard female shape. You mention buxom, but there are not a large number of pear-shaped women whose hips are disproportionately larger than their breasts in the media -- save Kimmy K and JLo, anyway, who are 'freaks' in Hollywood. There are certainly very few apple-shaped women. There are extremely few muscular woman, with or without the "shape."

[(Anonymous)]

Big-hipped women are dime-a-dozen in Western cartoons, though. TV Tropes calls them "Hartman Hips".

[(Anonymous)]

That sort of build automatically parses as "male".

The ideal of a fit woman whose musculature is all-but-invisible is not the natural limit of what a woman can build. Take Serena Williams, or Gina Carano (when she was still fighting), or Jessica Biel in Blade III. Visibly powerful, with serious guns. There are a handful of women drawn this way - I try to collect pictures of them - but it's extremely uncommon. So, no, women can be drawn with lots of different body types stereotyped as "masculine" (such as being a long lean beanpole, or being a round and plump with a large belly, or whatever), and still parse as female. Most artists just depict them as the same uniform "slender with distinctive curves and long legs", which is not the only look women possess. It can be dismaying if you like women with the kind of builds that aren't popular, which I also do.

It would be like giving a woman a beard. I mean, it's technically possible for it to happen, but why would you do that? Beard representation?

No, because beards are sexy to some people, and if you find women and beards sexy, maybe you want to combine your favorite sexy things into one sexy whole. Maybe you find facial hair incompatible with women, but not everyone does.