And no where did I suggest that you were insisting to have said body type included. I was just commenting on how such a body type IRL would be detrimental to health and unrealistic after somebody brought up Occult nine and that adding such a thing to magic art likely isn't a good thing. Nor was I implying that a D or DD cup is overgenerous. Lighten up man.

Oh...cool. Sorry about that.

For me, I think the difference between each gender's idealized body makes it harder to compare. I'm going to speak in generalizations here about more widely held idealized bodies and I do recognize that they are not turn ons for everyone, so please do not feel like I'm attacking or mitigating other body types.

A man's ideal body is very muscular, big, broad, and strong. His body is defined by being active. When you see an idealized guy swinging a sword around and fighting then it looks, to us, as something more appropriate. This is part of the problem that I think plagues art surrounding female bodies. The idealized female body, at least in western media, tends to be softer and more "lush" as opposed to the man's hardness (this is coming out wrong). It's a lot harder to portray traditionally sexy women in more combat/active roles. Armouring up a man makes him look bigger and more impressive. Armouring up a woman hides what defines her body as sexy. I feel like this makes male sexualization more difficult to identify because it's not always guys hanging out with abs and pecs. This is why I think it's hard to compare male and female sexualization in the same medium but I think both exist as cultural forces which can be detrimental.

Honestly, this whole discussion is also making me think of Dragon Age with Morrigan's endless center boob and Iron Bull's constant near-shirtlessness. Both of them were presented as fairly sexualized people (Morrigan kind of playing up the mysterious, beautiful temptress, and Bull being an exaggeration of the strong, dominant male in every aspect) but I kinda feel the contrast with Alistair from DA:O. Personally, Alistair's pretty much "my type" and I'm not the only one who considered him sexy despite the fact that he was generally not portrayed as sexy at all. The closest he ever got was having nice hair, as far as I recall.

This brings up another aspect of this discussion. What you describe as "a man's ideal body," is more a description of the sort of body a man would like to have, rather than the sort women find attractive. It can be argued that the bodies of both men and women in fiction are designed according to the preferences of heterosexual men. I know I'm painting with a very broad brush, but if you look at, say, actors that are often described as "sexy," you'll end up with Di Caprio, Hiddleston and Cumberbatch more often then you do with burly big guys.

This, pretty much.

Buffed up men are also rarely visually framed the same way as sexualised women. We usually just get somewhat distant upper body shots as opposed to the camera zooming in closely.

In card art, of course, it doesn't matter since characters are always seen from a distance.

Totally going to agree with this. I probably should have rephrased this around the idea of "The body men are told is ideal". Sorry. I'd also forgot to point out that there are a couple of variations in "desirable female archetypes" and their bodies (the Manic Pixie Dream Girl comes to mind as her body isn't always the "tall/large breasted/long haired" idealization but tends to be more petite).

I also think we need to note the difference between handsome and sexy. I think Tom Hiddleston is handsome but I think a shirtless, jacked Liam Hemsworth is sexy (Oh God please don't judge my taste in male celebrities!). On a side note, I don't buy into Di Caprio's "dad bod" trend at all =/

Oh come on, Liam isn't even the best Hemsworth brother.

I can't comment on that. The things I find sexy are behavioral more than they are physical.

Completely off-tangent, but why is this forum-section so gay? I feel like it has to be at least 30% or something, and there's several of you (us?) that I see posting primarily here.

That is roughly what I tried to convey, when calling sexualization of men and women unequivalent.
I googled a bit around when making that statement, and a couple of articles that appeared were The Triggers of Sexual Desire: Men vs. Women. I can't speak definitively in terms of it's credibility, since I'm not about to buy and read a book for the purpose of this topic, but I don't think what it outlines is unreasonable. I'll try to highlight some points it makes, for a tl;dr:


It outlines some differences that I feel are important to the topic. First of all, pandering to men is both easier to do, and to recognize. Highlighting attractive details in a woman lends itself well to visual mediums (such as card games), and is easier to note than more complicated characters designed to appeal to women. Secondly, male pandering is more controversial, as it often disempowers and objectifies women. Female pandering, on the other hand, can in some ways be empowering, and does not rely on controversial topics like skirting the lines of nudity, but rather lending itself to romantic development. It might be argued that conventional understanding of male sexualization might be more attractive to homosexual men than heterosexual women.

Now, I am not presenting this as the objective truth, but rather as a possible explanation, because I feel that discussions regarding male and female sexualization tends to be rather shallow. Ultimately, when I say I'm not against sexualization, it is no more than that. I do not personally appreciate it, except perhaps a statement in itself that a company is willing to do it, but I respect it as a company's decision to do it, at whatever consequence it may have for their demographics. I do not care for diversity in the slightest, and I would rather creators choose what they deem is most appropriate. Want to explore a love-triangle between a hetero-, bi- and homosexual characters? Sure, sounds really cool. But I do not have a need for content creators to make an effort to represent superficial elements in their works. If you want to make a card game about animu girls with oversized titties, don't let soggy knees get to you.

I don't think there's a single hetero male that posts in this subforum.

Ah, yes I am reminded of something. http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/b ... uivalence/


I feel my majority privelage eroding... must... vote for narcissitic ... truth-adverse socipath.

It's common also with the speculative biology forums I frequent as well, where there are +6 LGBT members at a given time (mostly male + one genderqueer person). I'd say legit "nerdy" sites, not quite infested by "LE SJWS!" kind of immature comments, are a plus to most LGBT nerds.



Good, because it is a still very controversial issue and with various discording results.



You had a semi-presentable argument until the "soggy knees" joke.

I know I'm moralizing, but I don't care (or rather, I do. A lot). Media is almost never divorced from author intent, and author intent is glued to societal norms and expectations. Which means it's all the hardest when there needs to be a message, a foot on the ground.

This is why representation is almost a civic duty, since it needs to exist to rupture the status quo and help the audience.

Now, none of this is intrinsically against titanic tittied 12 year olds. However, most people advocating for that also happen to be hypocrites shutting down representation and indeed anything remotely empathetic to social causes, which is why I have a massive negative reaction.

That describes literally everyone that was in this election.

Alright, you might be an eldritch abomination and know just about everything Magic lore wise, but I know my Hemsworths. First off, let's not even pretend that Luke's even in the running for Best. And while Chris is perfectly nice, his eyes lack that *sparkle* that Liam's have.



It's a mix for me. I can get drawn to a body and turned off by a personality or drawn by a personality and turned off by a body.



Ugh, didn't you read The Gay Agenda handbook Section 1.a-c? It clearly outlines our overall mission for world domination as: "Small, niche forums --> ??? --> The White House"



Did just want to mention that I don't entirely think that this is a false equivalence. Studies are really just starting to explore body-image issues in men and male eating disorders are on the rise. I think a lot of guys see physically perfect male celebrities and feel lessened by comparison. While women are taught to emphasize beauty far more than men, men are also taught not to talk about their feelings so there may be more going on than is being told.



Part of the problem with getting this representation is getting it to be something close to authentic. I'm a gay, white, middle class male. It's going to be pretty much impossible for me to accurately write on what it would be like to be a MtF trans, living in poverty, black woman because I literally have no idea what it would be like. Sure, I can ask questions of people who are or have been there and parrot those answers but I don't think that I would be able to do their lives justice. This means getting writers or advisers who've been there and can help give a bit of reality to these situations. It also means trying to homogenize these experiences. Even looking at something like writing a gay character tends to piss off half the community (from what I see). If a gay male character is too obviously gay he's declared a token character or just another stereotype. If he's too subtle he's declared straightwashed and just in for the convenience of saying they had one without having to risk offending someone. There are a few shows that seem to get it right, but I find those few and far between.

All portrayals of mtf trans in the media embarrass me.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihzp55Cuo7M

Chris's smile is miles ahead of Liam!
Plus the guy can rock a beard. I tend to think Liam's choice in work is... weaker.

There's a lot to be said for this.

Well baited. Fine, I'll bite.

I meant relative to other sections on this forum. I don't think it's as prevalent in ymtc, for example. I'd probably say there are more of them here, not even relative, but absolute, even though ymtc is a lot more active.


I assume you can substantiate that then, possible provide some of those discording results that would imply how either males want more nuance in their erotic pursuits, or how women are more simple-minded than presented in the article.


And then it all retroactively fell apart?

It's genuinely puzzling to me why you present this as something that's just to be accepted on blind faith.
Although I really don't understand the logical continuity in this sentiment to begin with. Or even the individual sentences. "Author intent bleeds into their creators, their intents are based on culture, this makes it more difficult to make a statement(?), therefore everyone has an obligation to support diversity because that's a good thing and we assume that it is entirely positive for the audience." I think?

Are you sure you're not conflating individuals within an entire demographic right now?
Not that it would be surprise me if there were a fair share of them, it's not like the anti-SJW is free from defects. I just have to look at my youtube feed with the "FEMINIST PWNED" videos to convince me of the more embarrassing side of it, and I don't doubt that it's an attractive type of media for edgy teens. Hypocrisy and double standards is human nature, they're certainly not the only ones to possess it.

It's kind of puzzling to me how you're probably my most progressive friend, despite researching a stem field. Not only do you take it upon you to speak on behalf of anyone taking issue with sexualization, but you would also like to discourage any dissent about male sexualization in a topic that wasn't originally a complaint about female sexualization. Rounding it up, you imply that sexualization inherently has to be objectifying and denigrating, and that it must be equivalent to how it is applied to women. I don't think Fifty Shades of Gray has many booty-shots.

There is much truth and wisdom in your statement, but I will have to disagree with you on "big breasts can't be used to beat up people". I am not joking. I am completely serious. I was once clocked in head by breasts the size of my head. The force behind it was incredible; it was like getting superman punched by a light-weight MMA fighter. And trust me when I say I know what's it's like to get superman punched by an MMA fighter. Knowing this I cannot bring myself to agree with you on that point.

There's an anime about that.