kukuruyo

These recent years have been an absolute minefield for any of us who work in the business of drawing sexy ladies. There’s a pervasive narrative pushed by a sector of feminism that claims any representation of women as sexy is sexist, and this is somehow one of the most important issues ever for equality, deserving of more attention and activism than the lack of female rights in other countries. Artists are being continuously attacked and harassed for drawing women in even the slightest provocative pose, clothes or body proportions; and it doesn’t matter if the artist is a woman. Consistent offenders in the sexy drawing department seem to deserve their accounts banned and their jobs to be taken from them, if these complainers have something to say about it.

Whenever these attacks happen, the conversation becomes predictable.  Feminists will complain about how ONLY the female characters are sexy or “sexualized”; that female characters have impossible standards for real women to meet (as if somehow the purpose of the drawing is for you to emulate it). People will, logically, point out that the men are equally idealized, impossibly fit, attractive, and sexualized. Then feminists will pull out the “male power fantasy” card, and claim that those male bodies are actually done for the men, that no women never ever ever would find those fit, idealized bodies attractive, and as such, “they don’t count”.

This is what I call the “Power fantasy fallacy”, because for this to be true, it involves willingly ignoring a lot of stuff about how male and female sexuality differ, in order to dismiss an argument that they’re otherwise unable to refute. People pointing out to them how men were subjected to the exact same standards than women was so much of a finisher against their claims, that they had to find a way to take the finisher out of the equation; to make people unable to use it. So they came up with the “power fantasy” solution, and, like with so many feminist arguments, they’ve adopted and shared it so much among themselves, that they consider it a factual truth, despite no proof of it, and they just throw it into any conversation as if the simple use of the word itself gave them undisputable victory.

Whenever I see this happening, I curse that the amount of text that would be necessary to explain how much wrong they are would widely surpass twitters tweets limit. It’s precisely the artists who work on the erotic who know of these differences in what is attractive for each gender and exploit it. I’ll put a solution to that today making this article to share as necessary.

A couple of things to point out first.

First, this article is NOT claiming that women can ONLY like men with fit bodies and all women have men with fit bodies as their nº1 preference. That would be absurd, there are more factors to attractiveness than just the body type, including face, eyes, hair, personality, etc. What the article is doing is refute the equally absurd claim that women DON’T like men with fit bodies; that muscles aren’t a factor AT ALL in what a woman find attractive in a man and so anytime a fit man appears on screen it’s done just for the men because no women could possibly find that attractive.

Second, everything that will be talked about here is in reference to AVERAGES. Whenever an academic paper or an expert makes a comment on the line of “women prefer X, men prefer Y” there’s ALWAYS someone who will say “that’s false because I don’t like it” or “It’s false because I know people who don’t like it”. That’s not how data works in scientific studies. Studies speak in averages. If studies find that 80% of men like Strawberries, then the conclusion will be that men like strawberries, because on average, men like strawberries. The existence of a 20% of men who don’t like strawberries doesn’t nullify the average. So I’ll be using a lot of “women like this, men like that”, based on what we know thanks to multiple studies on sexual attraction, and it will be always a reference to what most men or women like. Trying to point out that you don’t like it doesn’t refute anything.

So let’s begin by pointing out a fatal flaw in the comparison that sometimes even non-feminists make. Lots of times when the comparison is made, feminists will use a drawing of an attractive woman, and compare it with a drawing of some ultra-buffed guy on the style of Hulk or Rob Liefeld’s guys; characters who have like 4x the size of the biggest human and muscles that don’t even exist. They will use those characters and say “see? Those guys are not attractive for women, so it’s not true men are also sexualized!”

 

 

The thing is, that’s a false equivalence. The equivalent of a totally distorted male physical build is not a conventionally attractive woman. This is the equivalent:

 

 

Those weird designs with extremely exaggerated boobs would be the equivalent. Most guys will like boobs big to a point, but past that point it will begin to be grotesque. And examples like these will find few men who favor it. That is what would be similar to the feminist male examples, and none of the two would be attractive. But the thing is, that’s only a minority.

Most male characters are not like those. They’re like this:

 

 

The common male character has an idealized body but not too far of what a human can acomplish, if even outside of what a human can acomplish; the same as the common female character has an idealized but probably obtainable body, or not too far off. That is an attractive male character for most women and no amount of feminist negationism can invalidate it. Just look at some of the considered hottest men by women in real life; people like Chris Hemsworth, David Beckham or Jason Momoa.

And if you don’t believe it because *you* don’t like them, i have news for you:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact feminists tend to claim the female bodies are impossible to obtain, when in most of the cases they discuss they’re not (and people usually point out examples of real women looking like the drawings on even the same poses), but ignore that the idealized body for men is MUCH more unattainable. Hollywood actors have to go through INSANE and unhealthy exercise and diets, often dehydrating themselves, in order to have those bodies for the movies, and the moment the filming ends they revert to a much normal body cause it’s not healthy to mantain that physique for long periods of time. Women don’t have to go to THAT extent to obtain ideal bodies. Most attractive women are naturaly atractive and they have to care for not going fat but they don’t need a soul crushing training to be considered sexy.

A real life naturaly strong men doesn’t look like those in the movies or comics. A real life strong men has body mass. They look like this:

 

 

So don’t try to negate that those male characters in fiction are an idealized men, almost unattainable, that is used because women demand for it. Everyone knows it. Thus why feminists have to take the argument away.

To do that, they rely on maliciously make a 1:1 comparison of men and women, ignoring differences in sexual attraction, to claim that, since the man is not represented 100% the same as the woman that means he’s not sexualized. But that’s the thing; men and women find different things attractive, so the men are represented differently to fit into what women find attractive, so they will logically not be the same as the women.

Let’s start with the bodies. The key points in sexual attraction for men are usually things like boobs, hips size, or long legs, so images that put emphasis on those will be more attractive. But women aren’t going to be looking for long legs or child bearing hips. They are usually more attracted to things like the arms, the width of the shoulders, or the back, and female oriented shows tend to empathize that.

 

 

This is not because I say so. Sexual attraction has been widely studied and the data concludes women like men with physically strong upper bodies. In fact I will recommend you in this regard the book “Why women have sex” by Cindy M. Meston and David M. Buss. But there are tons of studies and even hidden camera social studies or just funny videos showing where women look when they talk to sexy men. Of course I’m summarizing but what do you expect, I’m just writing a random blogpost about a fallacy, not my thesis.

Another point of difference would be the clothes. This is one that feminists tend to focus on a lot, saying that women dress with revealing clothes, and pointing them out that the men in the same settings tend to be shirtless seems irrelevant for them. But the thing is, there are also differences in what types of clothing both sexes find attractive. Men are attracted to revealing clothes, while women are more attracted by clothes like suits or uniforms. That’s why a lot of female oriented media works have the men in elegant clothes or uniforms. Elegant, especially expensive clothes signify status, and status is attractive for women. There are more reasons for it and it would be long to explain.

(By the way, notice these kind of elegant characters also have fit bodies when they take their clothes off, in media outright created by women for women. These are not mutually exclusive things)

 

 

Let’s make a test for a moment with what we know so far. On one hand we have a close up of the chest of a woman in bikini. This is attractive to most men. However, how many women are attracted to a close up of a man’s penis while wearing a thong? Don’t lie; you know most women would find it ridiculous or even disgusting. This is because men are more aroused by visual, and women are more aroused by situation, requiring more build up.

 

Another point of difference is the poses. Feminists claim the poses of women are different and would look bad in a man. There’s a very stupid thing called “the Hawkeye initiative”, in which woke artists draw Hawkeye in the same poses (and clothes) as female characters in comics to show that he looks ridiculous, and this extremely surface level analysis is supposed to prove something.

The reality is that the poses that each sex find attractive are not the same. Men find attractive poses that put emphasis on boobs, hips and legs. Obviously, a man adopting a pose in which he puts emphasis in the hips is gonna look weird. The poses women find attractive are different. In fact, it would be good to point out here that when female artists (which by the way, in Japan completely dominate the erotic drawings market) draw yuri (lesbian love stories) they tend to draw the woman who’s the “male” of the couple in poses that are more typical of men. And also in uniform or suits.

 

 

The Hawkeye initiative itself is actually a proof of how men and women find different poses attractive, but a few years back there was a particular case that helps explain it even better. There was a particular Spiderwoman cover that caused a controversy because, according to feminists, it was sexist. The reason being that the pose Spiderwoman was in was “sexualized”, and they insisted that Spiderman would never, ever, be displayed in a similar pose. The problem is, the pose is actually a VERY common pose for Spiderman:

The pose is clearly a reference to a Spider crawling, and Spiderman has used it since its inception. In fact Spiderman has covers with open legs and very outlined crotch. So they’re basically using the same poses for Spiderman and Spiderwoman, but no one even lifted an eyebrown until it was Spiderwoman doing it. This is because the same pose has not the same effect in both sexes, and it’s more attractive when it’s done by a woman. This was basically an inverted Hawkeye initiative. By drawing a female character in the pose of a man they got a different result than with the man. So feminists were wrong here, but they inadvertently gave us a very good example of how you can’t apply the same poses to both sexes.

I’ve found a cosplayer named Momo Momoto who gave tips on how to “become” a guy or a girl for cosplay using just your pose, because, as i mentioned, poses are different for men and women. I’ll link her here for further exemplification.

Another good example on these differences is the case of Norah vincent. If you haven’t heard about her, you should. She was a radical feminist who was convinced that men live on easy mode, and tried to prove it by disguising as a man for 2 years. Instead, she found out that men have it harder, and wrote a book with all the daily stuff that women don’t realize about the hardships of being a man. But that’s besides the point. The relevant thing here is how to pass as a man she not only had to change her clothes and voice, but also the way she posed, the way she lean into people, how she moved, everything, so people would think of her as a man, because we are just not the same

There’s also a difference on what men and women want from their couple. A man is probably more attracted to female characters who look caring, sweet, or seductive, and that will be represented in how they act, move, pose, etc. But a woman will be more interested in men who look like protectors, providers, powerful or even a bad guy. One of the most common female fantasies is the called “Beauty and the beast” where they fantasize about being the one who domesticates the beast.

 

And before you say anything I remind you I’m talking in averages  and based on the prevalent science about men and women relations. In fact this is so prominent that even feminists prefer that kind of guys. I don’t care if you think those are gender roles or stereotypes or sexist, i’m not telling you how i think women should act or anything, i’m just telling you the science says we DO act this way, on average. I already mentioned at the beginning that this is not saying that women *only* like men like this. There are different types of men and bodies that women are gonna like and that doesn’t take away from the fact that they do like fit men; the same that men have a variance in bodies they like and yet it would be stupid to say “men don’t like big boobs so the well endowed characters in fiction are done for the women”.

And this is a good moment to point out another thing feminists tend to miss: Power is attractive. The definitive “male fantasy” is to get all the women. One of the main reasons why those fictional guys look so imposing is because that’s what gets them the girl. It’s a part of that fantasy of getting the girl that the guy needs a body and attitude that would grant him the girl. As such, a “male power fantasy” inherently needs for the character to look attractive to women. To say that a character is a “male power fantasy” doesn’t take away from the fact that he’s conventionally attractive to women. In fact it proves he is. A sexual fantasy and a power fantasy are not exclusive and in fact are tied in.

And tying on this point, another thing feminists ignore, is that if the guy is a “male power fantasy”, the woman is a “female power fantasy”. Because is also part of a woman’s fantasy to be attractive, to get the man they want, to use their looks to get what their want, to be sexually imposing over other people. That’s exactly the concept behind characters like Bayonetta, who was designed by a woman precisely as a female power fantasy, as a woman who uses her sexuality as she sees fit to put herself over others. And yet, Bayonetta is consistently one of the most hated characters in videogames by feminists. Truly, the Japanese women are miles ahead of western feminists on what is empowering.

So, in conclusion: Having established that women do very much like fit men, the “power fantasy” idea that fit men in fiction are there “for the men” simply falls apart by itself. Both atractive men are women aren’t there just for one sex, they’re for both, as both sexes like attractive people on screen, of any sex. Companies are not as economically illiterate as the people who make this kind of claims. They’re not out there intentionally loosing money to “perpetuate the patriarchy” or “impose canons of beauty” or, as feminists also tend to say, making boys and girls like different toys to “perpetuate gender roles”. For a company is absolutely PERFECT if what they do caters to the biggest amount of people possible and they’re always trying to do so. They would not be throwing sexy fit men; and sexy women; on screen if this made them earn less money just to “perpetuate” whatever conspiracy you want to believe. They throw them there precisely because women like them, and men also like them, and since almost everyone likes them, it’s a money making tactic.

To think that companies have been for decades, in huge cabal, purposedly losing money to perpetuate some weird imposition is an Illuminati class tinfoit hat conspiracy, and the only way to make people believe this stuff is decorate it with fallacies like the “power fantasy” because otherwise people will just use their eyes and see how stupid this is.

 

 

 

If anything we could complain about those anime harem protagonists who are totally average looking boys/girls, with no redeemable qualities, and yet have all of the sexy girls/boys in love with them for no reason. That’s a fantasy through self-insert; having all the girls/boys as yourself without changing anything to be attractive; while the imposing looking guys are a fantasy about how you should be to get the girl, because that IS attractive to girls.

Before ending i wanted to show you one guy. This guy over here is called Trundle. He’s a troll who was cursed to carry all of the diseases of every person of his entire race, combined. And yet look at him. If you just change his head, this would be a poster image for a male calendar. This is not rare. Lots of male characters who are supposedly ugly have actually conventionally attractive bodies, poses and clothing, and they just have a bad face.

Am i saying that men are as sexualized as the women, it just is done in a different way because the sexes are attracted to different things, and as such ignoring all those things to pretend that since they’re not 100% the same on a 1:1 comparison is a fallacy?

The use of the term “power fantasy” doesn’t invalidate the argument about men being sexualized the same in any way. Both are sexualized, just in different ways; both are fantasies, just in different ways, and none of them are pretending anyone have to emulate them. Stopping people from drawing ideals because you won’t be able to reach them is ridiculous.

In fact we would even have to argue why “sexualization” of a fictional character is even a bad thing to begin with, which is something I’ve never seen a feminist be able to explain convincingly. They just assume it is because that’s what they tell each other in their circles, and assume that when they throw it into a normal conversation people are gonna agree that it’s something we have to avoid. As if everyone else is a puritan, or feels threatened by an idealized hero. There are tons of counter arguments that could be done against the accusations of “sexualization” and why it’s supposed to be a bad thing. But that’s a topic for another time. This essay was tackling only one of the tons of arguments that take place in that discussion.